Columbia Foundation currently has three program areas:

• Arts
• Human Rights
• Food and Farming

For detailed information about each program area, please follow the links above. Click here for Media Guidelines.

The goal is to support art as a way of enriching life experience.

Grantmaking is focused on programs that provide opportunities to artists from diverse cultures for the creation, development, performance, or exhibition in the performing (music, opera, dance, theater) literary, or visual arts.

Current priorities are:

1. new work that demonstrates the potential: for artistic excellence, to reach large and diverse audiences, and/or to make a significant, new contribution to the art form;
2. art that is experimental, risk-taking, and/or engages controversial issues; and
3. programs that involve young artists, and/or art in community settings as well as within arts organizations.

Annual Deadline: March 1 for a letter of inquiry.

Geographic priority: The cities of San Francisco and London

back to top

The goal is to increase the sustainability* of farming.

* In the context of agriculture, sustainable production is organic, preserves and enhances biodiversity and soil fertility, is profitable, and employs fair labor practices.

Grantmaking is focused on programs in California working to accelerate the pace and increase the scale of the transition to sustainable growing practices. Priority is given to programs that:

1. strengthen the resilience of agriculture by preserving and enhancing biodiversity;
2. increase on-farm income;
3. maximize the amount of food that urban centers source from regional farms;
4. increase access to farmland for new farmers dedicated to practicing sustainable agriculture; and
5. develop the intellectual and policy frameworks and advocacy programs that accelerate the transition to sustainable food systems.

Annual Deadline: December 1 for a letter of inquiry.

Geographic priority: San Francisco Bay Area and Northern California for local projects, and California for statewide projects

back to top

The goal is to help protect basic human rights, including economic, social, cultural, civil, and political.

(As defined by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, these are not privileges granted by governments, nor should governments abrogate them.)

As of July 2011, the following two marginalized and underfunded issues will be the focus, in order to bring them more attention and to seek enduring solutions:

1. Prevention of child sexual abuse (CSA) through:
   
   1. school-based education programs for children, parents, and teachers;
   
   
   2. evidence-based policies and programs, including community and survivor-led programs, focused on intervention and prevention;
   
   
   3. public education to increase awareness of CSA’s prevalence within trusted circles of family and friends, and to end the taboo about its discussion.
   
   
2. Reduction of recidivism and the number of those imprisoned in California, through:


1. “second-chance” education programs for juveniles and adults who are or have been incarcerated;


2. program evaluation and documentation of the benefits of prisoner education for the students and for society at large, in terms of public safety, tax savings, and community healing.
   

Annual deadline: October 1, 2011 for a letter of inquiry

Geographic priority: San Francisco Bay Area

back to top

• approach grantmaking with a long-term perspective
• participate in partnerships for cumulative impact
• engage proactively with new leaders and ideas
• consult with external communities and experts to identify the highest and best use of funds

back to top

Madeleine Russell’s legacy to the foundation included her willingness to (1) tackle big issues even as a small foundation, (2) support unpopular causes, (3) consider projects whether local, national, or international, (4) always try to “make a difference” whether through continuing loyal support or through start-up grants. Over time, Columbia has focused increasingly on California over national programs. International grantmaking was always a very small part of the Columbia program and is not considered currently, with the exception of support for arts organizations and programs in London.

The foundation’s programs have encompassed different approaches to grantmaking as follows:

1. Within an area like environment, urban community, or human rights, when the foundation did not have defined program goals it looked for opportunities to support a few of the best organizations in the field, or to identify new, promising organizations that were doing good and important work, and that had not yet attracted the attention and support of other funders. It was the organization itself that was the primary focus of the grant review. In the arts, the foundation valued the quality of the art including less well known art from diverse cultures, while also supporting programs involving the next generation of artists and those who are reaching new audiences. The tried and true might be great art, but Columbia has more often funded “value-added” projects than institutional support for ongoing work.
2. When the foundation established more defined program goals (e.g., elimination of prejudice and discrimination based on sexual and gender diversity, sustainable food and farming systems in California), grant proposals were assessed in relation to the goals. Thus, it was not the merits of the nonprofit organization that were the primary subject of assessment; it was whether the nonprofit could significantly contribute to progress towards a program goal set by the foundation. The capacity of the nonprofit to work effectively on the program goals has been the primary, although not the only, consideration.
3. In some instances the foundation has dispensed with local limitations when the goals of the program would be best served by organizations working at the national level or in another geographic region (e.g., Freedom to Marry, Civil Marriage Collaborative, Public Campaign, Compassion in Dying).
4. There has been a continuing tension between: (1) a desire to provide only “start-up funds” for new endeavors and the often compelling need to provide funding for the long haul to strengthen an organization(s) in a new field; (2) consideration of small-scale, local, hands-on organizations providing direct service or developing new models versus more high-powered organizations that can work for systemic change; (3) funding for big organizations/institutions with established fundraising offices where other funding is often more available versus funding for smaller, newer organizations.
5. When focused on a program goal, the foundation sometimes has provided funding, either general-support or project-support grants, over five or even ten years to an organization, when it is assessed to be the most effective single actor working towards a goal set by the foundation.

back to top

The following questions are among those considered when reviewing an application for a grant.

1. Benefit – Does the program/activity hold promise for significant benefit of the foundation’s program goal? Of the many approaches/strategies employed by organizations, why does this approach offer the promise of success?
2. Context – What other organizations and leaders are active in this field? Is government involved? Does the private sector address this issue effectively? Is collaboration among organizations occurring?
3. Leadership – Who are the leaders? Success of the program/organization is largely due to the competence, creativity, experience, dedication, and energy of the leaders of the organizations/projects.
4. Cost – What is the cost of the activity? Is it reasonable in relationship to the promised benefits/outcomes?
5. Benchmarks – How many years/how many grants might Columbia consider for this organization until a major benchmark of progress is achieved or until the goal is achieved?
6. Likelihood of success – What is the probability that the benefits will be achieved? High risk, high gain? Low risk, high gain? High risk, low gain? Low risk, low gain?
7. Urgency – Is the issue urgent, requiring attention on a timely basis; are there special conditions now that increase the likelihood of success?
8. Time-frame – Will the benefit be achieved in the near future (3 to 5 years), in an adult’s lifetime (5 to 25 years), or in the long-term (for the next generation)?
9. Need – Does the applicant organization need Columbia funding, or is it probable it could secure funding elsewhere?

back to top

Columbia considers organizations with public charity status: (1) 501(c)(3) status for U.S. organizations, and (2) registration with The Charity Commission in the U.K. for London organizations. The foundation does not consider letters of inquiry from for-profit organizations or individuals.

back to top

Grants to support capital and endowment campaigns of large organizations (annual operating budget above $5 million) are a lower priority and are usually initiated by the foundation.

back to top

The foundation uses a portion of its resources to fund in fields of interest not currently emphasized in its guidelines. These grants may grow into formal parts of the foundation's program in the future or they may be single, one-time grants. Because these grants are initiated by members of the foundation's board of directors or staff, unsolicited letters of inquiry for programs outside of the foundation's current guidelines are not considered.

back to top