A Conversation with

Dorothy A. ("Dottie") Johnson is a very busy woman. Everyone I interviewed about her mentioned her cell phone. One grantmaker recalled being engaged in deep conversation only to be asked to hold, as Dottie placed her Diet Coke order at the drive-through window! When we discussed a date for this interview, I heard a flurry of planner pages being flipped as she described her rapid-fire itinerary: "I’ll be in Grand Rapids this afternoon, Flint tomorrow, Detroit…"

Maximizing the potential of every waking moment is the essence of Dottie Johnson, this year’s recipient of the Council on Foundations’ annual Distinguished Grantmaker Award. She recently "graduated" (not retired) after 25 years from the presidency of the Council of Michigan Foundations (CMF)—the largest regional association of grantmakers (RAG) in the country. Johnson has been involved on every level of philanthropy—local, state, regional, national and international—and is one of the few philanthropy professionals left in the field who was there right at the very beginning of RAGs.

She helped create CMF and other statewide philanthropy organizations, including the Michigan Nonprofit Association, the Michigan Community Service Commission, the Aspen Institute-Michigan Nonprofit Research Program and the Grand Valley State University Center on Philanthropy (now the Dorothy A. Johnson Center on Philanthropy).

Under her leadership, CMF has successfully positioned itself to become a regrantor of millions of dollars won by the state through the Exxon and tobacco settlements. CMF has also cultivated a legislative network described by Council Senior Vice President and General Counsel John A. Edie as "quintessential." In fact, CMF successfully lobbied for legislation establishing a tax credit for gifts to community foundations that included the first governmental definition of community foundations for special tax treatment purposes.

And not only was she the first female board chair of the W. K. Kellogg Foundation, but she has been or is currently on the boards of numerous national philanthropy-related organizations, including: the Indiana University Center on Philanthropy, Independent Sector, the Council on Foundations and the Foundation Center. Johnson has achieved all of that while moonlighting as a wife, mother, grandmother, civic leader, and yes, even a soprano in the church choir.

Following is an excerpt of our recent conversation—over the phone, of course.

You’ve watched CMF grow into the largest U.S. RAG, and along the way you’ve kept in touch with your Capitol Hill representatives. Have you seen any changes in their philanthropy views?
Seven years ago, four of us went to meet our legislators on the Hill. This February, we sent 20 people to the "RAGs on the Hill" day in Washington. Last November, our Senator Carl Levin stopped by my office to see me and asked "Are you and your colleagues coming to Washington next February?" I mean, we’ve come a long way, baby.

CMF set up committees of members to "cover" each member of the Michigan congressional delegation, and arranges for at least one meeting with each per year. What goes into coordinating all of those efforts?
First and foremost, the members have to care deeply about the issue. So we spend time reminding them about the issues.

Second, the RAG must be responsive. We have something at CMF that could be replicated all over the country, and that is our Allen Fund. It’s a permanent endowment, now amounting to about $140,000, which was put in place by our members to honor the first chair of our Government Relations Committee, William W. Allen. Those funds facilitate the grantmaker meetings with legislators, and help underwrite the directories and written information we provide.

Can you discuss examples of instances where developing relationships with the legislators has paid off?
There are three in particular. We have worked with other entities, other groups in our state—especially the state bar—on the elimination of the state inheritance tax.

A second example is the allocation of the 1987 Exxon oil spill restitution funds. In this case, Michigan received $70 million. CMF, together with our members, suggested that $3 million of that be regranted through CMF to the participating community foundations for making grants to save energy in their local communities, and we did that.

The third, and probably by far the largest, will be the tobacco settlement. The state legislature, with the governor’s recommendation, is allocating a portion of the $8 billion tobacco settlement to CMF to be regranted to every participating community foundation in the state to make grants for Healthy Youth and Senior funds.

One thing to remember is CMF’s board pledged to serve every citizen in the state with a community foundation, and we achieved that within ten years. By definition, then, we certainly have a network already in place to work with the legislature on these things.

How has CMF avoided falling into party affiliation snares?
We stay focused on the grantmakers. If there’s a specific piece of self-defense legislation, we seek co-sponsorship from both sides of the aisle. We have also made certain that our board is composed of individuals from both parties.

What’s the potential for replication of some of the statewide collaborations that you’ve been instrumental in, such as the Michigan AIDS Fund and the tobacco settlement that you mentioned?
It’s off the charts. But there are nuances. You really have to lay the groundwork—build the trust of all parties and gain the confidence of funders.

I’m trying very hard to talk about RAGs in general and not brag, but a key point for us was that CMF had a track record of 15 years of servant leadership before creating the Michigan AIDS Fund. It’s very interesting that if you charted the accomplishments of CMF, many of the things we’re talking about have happened in the last five years, and one is built upon another.

What led to your recent successes?
Certainly the economy has helped tremendously. And, we have a network of 27 board members, 467 members, 5,000 donors and trustees, more than 400 people involved on committees and a dynamic staff. Their cumulative efforts resulted in our accomplishments.

You’ve been quite involved in youth philanthropy programs. How do you see them affecting the future of philanthropy?
Tremendously! I’m terribly excited about this. We already have 5,000 high school students who have had a grantmaking experience. These young people are not just the student-body-president types. We have alternative education and adjudicated youth, too. Sure, there are some honor students, but we made certain that there’s been a real cross-section selected from 86 different communities in our state. To date, these young people have granted more than $3 million.

We also have examples of those same young grantmakers making career decisions to work in the nonprofit sector. We are building that next generation of volunteers and givers.

Has it been a struggle communicating what philanthropy is?
Absolutely. And, in fact, that’s why we’ve started the K–12 Education in Philanthropy Project. Right now we are working with more than 40 teachers who are designing curriculums at various grade levels and incorporating the concepts of philanthropy. And 106 of these lessons are now up on the Web at www.msu.edu/~k12phil/.

You helped to start several foundations and RAGs, both in the United States and abroad. What are the opportunities and responsibilities of grantmakers to reach out globally?
I’d like to think all of us in the philanthropic arena subscribe to an overarching goal to improve and increase philanthropy to solve the problems in our world. Thanks to technology, this is much easier to do—staying in touch by the Internet has helped when the organizations have an immediate problem. I know from my work at Kellogg that international nonprofits are interconnecting themselves—it’s not always nonprofits in other countries connecting with nonprofits in the United States, but it’s South Africa to Brazil, and so on. Sometimes they are getting better answers that way, and we have helped to make that happen.

And, quite honestly, I learn something every time CMF has a delegation visit from another country. I’ve learned to listen and ask questions to see how they might approach different situations. Being able to talk with many of them informally about how they nurture philanthropy has taught me that it’s not that much different from how we do things in the United States. However, I do find the fact that so many other countries do not have tax codes that encourage philanthropy to be a real stumbling block for them.

How would you get a foundation started in that type of atmosphere?
It is a challenge. We try to find people from the respective country or culture who have lived in the United States, are philanthropic and are involved to meet with us and share ideas. They may not be able to turn around a culture in a generation, but what they are doing is providing new examples, which we’ve found to be our best solution.

Was it challenging to become the first female board chair of the W. K. Kellogg Foundation?
Quite honestly, there were really only opportunities. I hadn’t thought of it at the time, but I noticed that women run many of the Kellogg grantee organizations. I saw that when I visited them or represented Kellogg at any kind of public function, they were very excited to see a woman chairing the board.

And I guess by extension, today, I am thrilled to see that more and more women and minorities are serving as trustees and CEOs of grantmaking organizations. When I started in this business 25 years ago, that was not the case. Actually, I have always wanted to see diversity in the grantmaking arena in all respects. It needs to be done. Many people have the wisdom required to do this work.

What is your vision for the future of the RAG movement?
I think we’re going to have strong local RAGs, and a strong national organization—the Council on Foundations—with each group doing what they do best. The fact that the regional associations, through the Forum of RAGs, have taken on the new ventures in philanthropy project is integral to the promotion of philanthropy and is only going to expand both the philanthropic resources and the strength of RAGs.

As chair of the Forum of RAGs New Ventures in Philanthropy National Advisory Committee, what effect do you think this much-heralded transfer of wealth will have on foundations and, in turn, the RAGs that serve them?
More resources. Second, there would be more involvement of the next generation. We are finding that some people are setting up foundations much earlier. People used to think of this as something you do in your 60s, and now people are doing it in their 30s. Philanthropy is becoming a family activity. It’s no longer just sort of a top-of-the-desk-drawer activity of a single donor. More and more families are including another generation or two. As the hands-on generation is growing up, the demands on the RAGs are only going to grow.

How is the CMF preparing for this change?
We continue to increase our number of volunteers, meaning donors and trustees and staff of existing foundations. We also continue to increase our list of collaborating partners because we can’t do it all alone. I subscribe to the theory of one plus one can equal three if you collaborate.

With so many board memberships to your credit, what do you think it takes to be an effective board member?
Number one is an absolute passion for the cause. Second, you need to have a willingness to become truly engaged, and spend the time that it takes to be engaged. Third, you have to have a commitment to the spirit of whatever the board is that you’re working with. And, fourth, very practically, you have to do your homework and always be on the lookout for new approaches.

What is your secret to wearing several career hats while balancing the demands of family life as a wife, mother and grandmother with all of your other civic involvements—singing in the church choir, even?
Good heavens, who have you been talking to? I have been blessed with high energy. I am also multiple-task oriented—the more on my plate, the better I do.

I find that my job with the regional association is never really "done." I just try to manage it in a way that’s responsive to the most members in the timeliest fashion.

Is there anything that frustrates you that you wish you had gotten done?
My frustration is that Silicon Valley is not in Michigan. But seriously, everyone has frustrations. I’ve tried to turn mine into opportunities.

What are your concerns for the field in the new millennium?
I really am quite concerned about the transfer of volunteer and donor leadership from one generation to the other—that transfer of the ethic of giving.

Looking at the Forbes 400 list or older wealthy donors, I wonder, are they sharing that ethic with their children? David and Lucile Packard were a good example of where it was transferred and done beautifully. I’m concerned that that happens for foundations and corporate giving programs of all sizes.

I’m also concerned about disengagement—individuals who don’t seem to care any more. This is also a problem that’s on the rise that grantmakers need to do something about.

What are your own plans for the future?
I’ve been asked to continue to chair the New Ventures in Philanthropy committee, and I am going to continue as a CMF volunteer, and work on our K–12 project. My successor, Rob Collier, has asked me to do quite a bit of "postgraduate work" before he’ll give me my diploma, and I am going to continue on foundation, corporate and educational boards.

Plus, I’ve just learned that our daughter and her husband are expecting twins in June.