The following is excerpted from Community Kinship: The Story of the Springs Foundation, by Carol Robbins

CHAPTER THREE: FINE-TUNING TO MEET LOCAL NEEDS

Shifts in Grantmaking

“By the time I started with the foundation in 1972,” says Charlie Bundy, “its philosophy and grant­making were pretty well set. These emanated directly from the feelings and intentions of Col. Springs, who believed the charitable money should be used to provide things that would help local people with their individual living and growth.” Anne Springs Close adds, “The board felt committed to the original mission, though we approached that with openness about the mix of grants. The guiding question was, ‘How do we reach the most people here?’ “

From the 1970s through the 1980s, as in the Springs Foundation’s formative years, the largest portion of grants went to recreation facilities and programs. These received about half of the funds distributed. Another very sizable outlay of funds was for the hospital honoring the founder; when this was completed in the 1970s, there was a reduction in grantmaking to health, and concur­rently an increase in support of educational and diverse social programs.

Meanwhile, the Close Foundation concentrated on higher education and two large recreation projects: a state-of-the-art complex in Fort Mill, providing aquatic and athletic programs, child development activities, art and other classes, and activities for seniors; and Springmaid Mountain, 430 mostly undeveloped acres off the Blue Ridge Parkway, where the public hike, ride horses, canoe, and fish.

There was, over time, a subtle shift in family grantmaking. More emphasis began to be placed on one-time awards and seed money to get new concepts or projects started—instead of big, multi-year, highly visible commitments. At the same time (as described in Part IV), there was concern for conserving the foundation’s capital and making Springs grants “work harder,” as Jim Bradley describes it. This involved leveraging other private or public funds with grants, and increasing some user fees for recreation programs.

By the early 1980s, there was a conscious concern for flexibility and for funding projects experimenting with new concepts and solutions. Local schools, which tended to be relatively under financed, approached the foundation with a host of needs and ideas. This led to Springs sponsorship of innovative educational programs that fostered learning in the early grades; vocational and reading programs for all levels; and an initiative to introduce students to the arts by bringing dancers, poets, musicians, and painters to elementary school classes.

Throughout the grantmaking, there has been support of progressive social issues. This brings to mind what Charlie Bundy counts as his proudest moment with the foundation. It occurred after three rural churches with black congregations were torched in Lancaster County one Sunday evening. Two white men were apprehended. When he heard the news, Charlie called Bill Close, and they convened an Executive Committee meeting by telephone. On Monday morning, the foundation announced $5,000 grants to each church; the gifts were matched by Springs Indus­tries. “ The foundation in essence was saying, ‘This isn’t the kind of community we are,’ “ Charlie explains. “It was critical that an organization with local respect and history get that message across.” Other groups and individuals followed suit, enabling the churches to be quickly rebuilt

Board Retreat to Address Change

As part of marking the fiftieth anniversary of the Springs Foundation, Charlie proposed a board retreat. This would be the family’s first formal strategic planning effort and its first professionally facilitated meeting. “They never had really sat down and said, ‘This is what we’re about,’ “ Charlie recounts. “The purpose was to examine whether what we were doing was still correct, still meeting needs, and then plan for the next decade.”

The retreat was held in late September 1992 at Springmaid Mountain. Ten of the 12 board members participated in the two-day event; two third-generation members were unable to attend. Also present were William Taylor, president of the Springs Company; James Hodges, board secretary and general counsel for the holding company (now Governor of South Carolina); and Denise Cavanaugh, a consultant from Washington, D.C., who served as moderator.

After easily reaching consensus that the foundation had been successful and should be continued, the group tackled some key issues. The first—familiar to most family foundations at some point—involved the reality that only Anne and three of her eight children continued to live in the immediate area. Others had settled as far away as Seattle and New York. There was concern about the foundation’s ability to be aware of and respond appropriately to community needs. To address this, Will Close proposed creating an advisory organization of local residents, and five board members were appointed to study the possibilities and make recommendations.

A few family members expressed interest in broadening the foundation’s geographical focus, but the general sentiment was against this concept. But the board extensively discussed—and ultimately endorsed—two significant refinements in programmatic focus.

First, support to institutions of higher education outside the foundation’s immediate service area, which had become substantial in recent years, would be phased out. Instead, there would be grantmaking priority for programs that benefit local youngsters in their early childhood. The impetus, according to Anne Close Springs, was the board’s desire “to focus our efforts on preventing problems rather than dealing with the effects of those problems later when treatment becomes more expensive and less effective.”

Second, there would be emphasis on programs benefiting “the lower ten percent of the popula­tion,” thus creating more impact on the area’s economically disadvantaged and minority residents. “Some of the younger board members in particular,” Anne recollects, “felt we should become more proactive, instead of only responding to requests. They wanted to initiate programs where demonstrable needs exist.”

Chief among these was Francie Hart, Anne’s eldest daughter, who has been at the forefront of many social change projects over the years. Reflecting on the 1992 retreat, she notes strong opposing points of view, vigorously expressed: “Some people, for instance, were really worried about opening our activities to the scrutiny of community advisors; some also wanted to continue big grants to go to their colleges. But there were no real splits, and once we finished debating, we moved on.”

Consensus reached at the retreat was informal; ratification would come at the next semiannual meeting of the board, in November 1992. Implementation would be incremental, with some actions taking several years.

To commemorate the Springs Foundation’s fiftieth year, Will Close recommended at the retreat that he and his siblings each contribute $250,000, paid over five years, to the foundation’s corpus. This infusion was more important as a means to validate family cohesion than to strengthen foundation coffers. Says Will, “If you’re going to be part of making decisions that affect people’s lives, you should be willing to take a stake in the institution. With everyone in the current generation donating money, there would be a sense of ownership; we’d become a part of the foundation’s history.”

The retreat set in motion new directions, established common interests, and renewed family commitment. Summing it up, Charlie says, “The board showed its willingness to change with the times. There was some fine-tuning and awareness of issues that had to be dealt with in the future. But, overall, Col. Spring’s ideas were so sound that we really didn’t see a need to substantially alter them. Holding the retreat, however, brought to a close the Colonel’s era. It meant the foundation would increasingly bear the imprint of Anne and her children.”

The Community Advisory Committee

The study subcommittee designated at the retreat immediately began to research and discuss the experience of other organizations, such as the Kellogg Foundation, in using community advisory boards in helping to inform family decision-making. Soon they were ready with recommenda­tions, which the Springs Foundation board swiftly approved.

Three people from each of the foundation’s three target areas—Lancaster County and the towns of Fort Mill and Chester—would comprise the new Community Advisory Committee. The Springs board would select members after holding meetings with leaders in the respective localities. All citizen advisors would be limited to three-year terms. To create staggered durations within each community, the charter members would draw straws for one, two or three years; those appointed for only one year could opt to serve a second term.

Nine appointees to the Community Advisory Committee were selected and invited to participate. First gathering as a group over the summer, they attended their first foundation board meeting in April 1993. As would become the custom, they participated in the morning portion of the meeting to join in discussions about the foundation and current and potential grantees, but were not present in the board’s afternoon voting session.

Robert (Bobby) Holcolmbe Jr. was among the charter members. An area native who started his Springs career at age 16—working nights and weekends at a plant during high school—he was Vice President of Personnel Services for Springs Industries when he retired in 1990. “I consid­ered it a great compliment to receive a letter from Mrs. [Anne] Close asking me to join the advisory group,” he says, “and it was refreshing to see how open the board was at our first meeting. The family is very approachable, but they’re so busy. The Community Advisory Committee helps broaden their access and outlook. Because of it, the foundation is now much more identified with the Chester area. People corner me on the street about possible projects for funding; this is part of my role.”

In 1997, Will Close talked Bobby Holcombe into opening a Chester satellite office, where student loans could be processed and residents would feel comfortable visiting. Two days a week, Bobby explains guidelines to potential grantees, helps them with paperwork and requirements (such as becoming a tax-exempt organization), and observes firsthand local programs. One day that might entail meetings at his office with representatives of the Arts and Science Council, the Black Heritage Committee or a new community cleanup group; other times, it may involve a visit to a small church or school.

Almost from the start—even while absorbing a vast amount of information about the foundation and how it works—the citizen advisors spoke up about needs and how to best address them. Lizann Lutz, a newspaper columnist and Fort Mill representative, says, “There is always lively debate about allocations at the board meetings. Community Advisory Committee members talk up projects we feel strongly about, provide information and make sure there isn’t duplication of effort.” No one feels constrained to focus on their own localities. “Basically, everyone in the room cares about the entire community,” Lizann notes, “and about making good choices.”

Springs Foundation board members applaud the role of the advisory group. Anne calls it “one of our most successful moves.” Francie notes, “Even those who were very apprehensive about having outsiders involved now acknowledge it’s the best thing going for us. We value their opinions enormously. It’s how we make sure real needs and community voices drive the agenda.” Along with grounded perspective, another advantage of the Community Advisory Committee is that its presence keeps family dynamics in check during grantmaking discussions. “We simply behave better—more objectively, less emotionally—with them in the room,” says Francie.

Recent Funding Innovations

Some new program directions, with more proactive giving, came to the fore in the mid-1990s. One involved the decision to use foundation funds along with Springs Company-owned land to create affordable housing in Fort Mill. “The need was identified by one of our Community Advisory Committee members,” says Will, “who pointed out that the town’s waiting list for assisted housing had grown to 80 households.” As a result, the foundation paid for a formal needs assessment, with public participation, for creating a new residential development, Avery Lake; provided $125,000 startup funds; and dedicated $250,000 of the $500,000 needed to build a community center in the new neighborhood to house early-childhood programs identified in the needs study (the other $250,000 was put up by the local Head Start).

Crediting Francie and Will for spearheading the bold move, Charlie Bundy views Avery Lake as a turning point for the foundation. There was considerable risk, because it involved complexities in which the board had no experience, such as using government programs and establishing a separate entity with a community board. “It marked the first instance we actually created a project, versus responding to a grant request,” Charlie says.

The first 48 low-rent townhouse units were occupied in 1996. Thirty-six single-family homes followed, sold to people with incomes below 80 percent of the area’s median. When completed—through further planned stages of detached houses, apartments and condominiums—the develop­ment will provide about 1,600 people with affordable living. The community center is up and running, with activities for Head Start and the Boys and Girls Club, along with space for the housing development company’s offices and community meetings. So successful has the project been that the Springs Foundation is looking at a site in Lancaster, where it hopes to repeat the process that made Avery Lake a reality.

Another program innovation was establishment of the Close Scholars Program at nearby Winthrop University. This provides scholarships to students who have demonstrated, and plan to continue, an interest in community service. In return for financial support, they agree to volunteer an average of 10 hours a week at a local nonprofit organization. The foundation has pledged $1 million over five years to establish the program; Springs Industries is contributing an additional $500,000. The first eight Close Scholars were selected in June 1999. Eventually 25 students will receive $8,000 over eight semesters, plus a $1,000 grant at completion of the program toward repayment of any student loans.Will Close sees the new scholarship program as critical for a number of reasons: “Not only does it help students afford college, but it also provides a pool of volunteers for projects at the nonprofit agencies the foundation supports. Moreover, it trains young people in the language of philan­thropy and community service. There is a serious need throughout the country to broaden philanthropy’s base; we need to create future benefactors, and they shouldn’t be only the wealthy people in a community. A program like this, on a small- scale, individual level, can help.”

Other programs—now stalwarts of the Springs Foundation’s giving—have shown impressive results. The college loan program now provides financial aid for 160 students a year. Since it’s inception, the program has lent nearly $6.5 million to more than 7,200 individuals. The Learning Experience and Parenting (LEAP) program has become a model initiative, offering a broad array of support for parents of preschool children; now in its tenth year, it was saved from almost-certain demise with Springs funding, beginning in 1994.

There now about 90 organizations and agencies supported annually by the foundation, with grants ranging from $1,000 to $250,000. Because of the pledge launching the Close Scholars Program, commitments to educational programs eclipsed those in recreation in 1998. (Third came community service, which now incorporates the former category of religion, with grants totaling almost $900,000; health programs received only $50,500.) The balance shifted back in 1999, with recreational programs once again receiving the largest proportion of giving. This is likely to be the pattern in the future; notwithstanding occasional opportunities for large, innovative programs, grantmaking is expected to reflect the Springs Foundation tradition of providing the largest proportion of support in the area of recreation.

© 2003 National Center for Family Philanthropy. All Rights Reserved.

Return to Publications Page