The Cleveland Foundationwas established in 1914 as the nation’s first community foundation. Under the Tax Reform Act of 1969 it is classified as a "publicly- supported organization^’ and is thus exempted from the Act's new provisions regarding private foundations, including excises.

The Cleveland Foundation’s purpose is to provide a way for any person to give money for his community’s benefit, certain that changing needs will not make his gift obsolete. Some donors designate ultimate recipient organizations.Others specify areas of concern such as child care, education, health and welfare, citizen involvement, strengthening the public service and cultural affairs. With these and many undirected gifts, The Cleveland Foundation actively supports projects in the broad ranges of philanthropy.

Greater Cleveland Associated Foundationwas established in 1961 to sharpen the focus of philanthropy’s concern with the tough urban problems of today.

Under the Tax Reform Act of 1969, it is also classified as a “publicly supported organization’.’ It therefore is exempt from the Tax Reform Act's new provisions regarding private foundations.

Distribution Committee and Board of TrusteesJohn Sherwin, C hairm an Raymond Q. Armington Thomas A. Burke Dr. Kenneth W. Clement Edward H. deConingh Mrs. Royal Firman, Jr. Edgar A. Hahn

H. Stuart Harrison Harvey B. Hobson James D. Ireland Frank E. Joseph George F. Karch Elmer L. Lindseth Thomas F. Patton

Grant Summary for 1969

The Greater ClevelandCleveland Foundation Associated Foundation

EducationHigher

Grants Approved

In 1969

All Grant Payments

in 1969 (Including Prior

Year Commitments)

Unpaid Grants

Decem ber 31,1969

Grants Approved

In 1969

All Grant Payments

in 1969 (Including Prior

Year Commitments)

Unpaid Grants

Decem ber 31,1969

$ 286,556.01 $ 348,738.01 $ 216,620.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 32,644.00 $ 11,856.00Elem entary and

Secondary 160,433.72 92,833.72 104,600.00 - 0 - 10,000.00 - 0 -Scholarships 223,667.33 212,322.33 23,720.00 - 0 - - 0 - —0 —Special Program s 420,485.38 294,485.38 166,500.00 1,700.00 41,584.10 23,435.90

Totals 1 ,091,142.44 948,379.44 511,440.00 6,700.00 84,228.10 35,291.90

Cultural Affairs 535,511.44 549,411.44 367,100.00 - 0 - - 0 — - 0 —

Health and WelfareH ospitals, Health,

and M edical Program s 597,719.57 776,063.25 654,300.00 — 0 — - 0 — —0 —Children and Youth 886,508.75 859,189.97 144,629.73 1,613.28 21,770.53 - 0 -Aged 341,022.39 291,598.82 105,247.57 - 0 - - 0 — - 0 -Com m unity Service

O rganizations 432,159.49 563,597.74 155,149.20 85,300.00 27,000.00 58,300.00

Totals 2,257,410.20 2,490,449.78 1,059,326.50 86,913.28 48,770.53 58,300.00

Civic AffairsCitizen Involvem ent 128,625.88 240,975.41 76,718.47 53,943.37 76,784.81 110,888.56Em ploym ent and

Econom ic Developm ent 512,889.87 414,526.60 134,609.00 155,805.00 91,325.63 64,479.37Housing 367,744.00 159,548.00 265,696.00 15,000.00 110,833.34 9,794.57Strengthening the

Public Service 239,322.00 129,493.56 109,828.44 261,420.39 281,403.06 251,469.73

Totals 1,248,581.75 944,543.57 586,851.91 486,168.76 560,346.84 436,632.23

Special Philanthropic ServicesG .C .A .F. A dm inistrative G .C .A .F. for Grants

Totals

155.941.50*

155.941.50

152,441.50659,549.67

811,991.17

3.500.00*

3.500.00

Grand Totals $5,288,587.33 $5,744,775.40 $2,528,218.41 $ 579,782.04 $ 693,345.47 $ 530,224.13

‘ A lthough G reater Cleveland A ssociated Foundation grant funds are held by T he Cleveland Foundation, the G .C A .F . Board of Trustees authorizes its grants and grant paym ents. T herefore, authorized and unpaid G .C .A .F. grants are reported only in the G .C .A .F . summary.

Foundations and the Tax Reform Act of 1969

Last year, the Foundations' annual reports began with the observation that 1968 was an incredible year which presented great challenges and opportunities for philanthropy. Developments this past year marked 1969 as another incredible year, indeed, for foundations.

Even before the Congressional hearings and the resulting publicity, it became painfully clear to members of the Distribution Committee and our staff that the activities of America’s foundations were largely unknown or misunderstood by broad segments of the population.

A real sense of modesty had kept many foundations from publicizing their activities and developing a strong base of public support. At the same time, a number of real abuses had crept into philanthropy, and stories of abuses by tax-exempt organizations grew rapidly out of all logical proportions. To Congress and to the public, it began to seem that the activities of foundations were not worth their tax exemptions.

Our staff was aware of the seriousness of the problem quite early. Dr. James A. Norton, director of The Cleveland Foundation and president of the Greater Cleveland Associated Foundation, testified before the Committee on Ways and Means of the U. S. House of Repre­sentatives on February 19,1969. He came away convinced that restrictions upon foundation activities were likely to become law during1969, and that prudent regulation obviously was needed.

In the April, 1969, issue of C hallenge and R esponse (a periodical published for 10,000 friends of The Cleveland Foundation and the

Greater Cleveland Associated Foundation), Dr. Norton wrote: "The current Congressional review suggests the need for a renewed focus on philanthropy and its goal of serving man, as contrasted with other reasons for establishing foundations.. .The wisdom and sincerity with which we give will help determine whether other privileges, such as tax deductibility, go with it’.’

That issue of C hallenge and R esponse recom­mended actions — quite mild in retrospect — to ensure that legitimate foundations could continue to be philanthropic, and to enable the Federal government to detect and eliminate abuses of foundation privileges by other organizations and individuals.

This position was not universally accepted.Many foundation executives throughout the country felt that foundation activities were so predominantly worthwhile and abuses so insignificant that Federal regulations were neither necessary nor desirable. Many persons also felt that, in the end, the parts of the Tax Reform Bill affecting foundations would be dropped, just as a number of similar Federal efforts to regulate foundations had failed in the past. They wanted to "keep quiet’’ and wait.

The Kent Smith StudyBut as the Ways and Means hearings drew to a close, it became increasingly apparent that the actions of this Congress would be different. Animosities grew. Also, recipients of foundation grants were not coming forward in great numbers, nor were they providing information about the the real and growing need for foundation funds in any concerted manner.

Kent H. Smith, Chairman Emeritus of the Greater Cleveland Associated Foundation, and former member of the Distribution Committee of The Cleveland Foundation, tried to fill some of this information void, using personal, non tax-exempt funds. In July, 1969, he commissioned a private study, titled: "The Effects of Organized Philan­thropy Upon Educational Projects, Programs, Institutions and Systems in One Industrial- Commercial Metropolitan Area’.' Two weeks later, the first 27 copies of the two-volume study were delivered to the office of Congressman Charles Vanik, a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, for study by the Committee before drafting the House Bill.

The Kent Smith study was quoted and reprinted in a variety of publications. It tended to support the case for continued encouragement of foun­dations, and provided useable data concerning the growing need for them. The issue was no longer being lost by default. By the time the bill was discussed in the Senate Finance Committee and the Senate, other groups had joined in making more facts available. Ten other com­munity foundations joined The Cleveland Foundation in employing counsel to represent the special needs of all community foundations.

Under the Tax Reform Act, community founda­tions which meet the tests of "public charities” or "50 percent organizations” are now exempt from classification as private foundations. This imposes a special obligation of leadership on them.

The Tax Reform Act, discussed in the February,1970, issue of C hallenge and R esponse, contains significant departures from previous laws regarding private foundations. The changes are intended to prevent abuses and ensure that private foundations distribute their income for charitable purposes. In addition, to help pay the costs of enforcing the new law, private founda­tions are required to pay an annual excise.

It is important to remember that the Tax Reform Act of 1969 has not in any way lessened the need for organized philanthropy in the seventies. It has produced changes in philanthropy’s

methods and directions, but many of these will probably prove beneficial to legitimate philan­thropic efforts. Also, careful implementation and and strict enforcement of the new law will tend to make abuses impossible.

This year, all foundations are adjusting to the new regulations under the Tax Reform Act. Many small private foundations may decide to become separate trusts in community founda­tions. The Cleveland Foundation is ready to discuss separate trusts or contributions to the Combined Fund to be of help to donors. The Associated Foundation is ready to assist with staff review of proposals, evaluations, or reporting when asked to do so.

Goals of FoundationsTo make clearer to prospective donors, to grant-seekers, and to the general public how a foundation operates, this year’s annual reports for the Foundations are prefaced by summaries of representative memoranda prepared by our staff for consideration by the Distribution Committee and the Board at its annual meeting in January, 1970. They cover only the four areas of foundation grant activity which were reviewed at that meeting. Other memoranda are routinely considered on foundation programs in health and welfare, youth services, the broader fields of of civic affairs, race relations and community planning. The report on the substantial growth of the Foundations in 1969, the grants which were made, and the auditor’s report follow the format we have used in previous years.

John Sherwin

Chairman, Distribution Committee The Cleveland Foundation

Chairman, Board of TrusteesGreater Cleveland Associated Foundation

Thinking About Grant-Making in 1970

The general idea behind the establishment, operation and privileges of foundations is that some private money can be devoted to the well­being of mankind — to philanthropy in its broadest sense.

Special foundations limit their major activities in a variety of ways. Some deal only with certain problem areas, such as education or medical research. Others restrict their clientele group: for example, to needy children or to the residents of a defined geographic area.

The Cleveland Foundation is a social mechanism established so that philanthropists can designate recipient organizations or restrict the use of their donated funds in other ways, confident that a publicly appointed group of citizens will not let those funds continue to support designated recipients if and when the need or appropri­ateness of such support ceases. In such instances, the Distribution Committee is able to turn donated funds toward new uses that continue to further the philanthropists' original charitable goals.

Those who choose to provide funds without designation or restriction can also remain confident that the informed and concerned Distribution Committee will use such funds to alleviate the community's most serious problems and advance its most urgent goals.

In 1961, six foundations joined in establishing the Greater Cleveland Associated Foundation to fill what was regarded as a void in the functions of Cleveland's philanthropic organiza­tions. The Associated Foundation was given four special purposes:

1. To encourage research on and solution of community problems.

2. To establish priorities for community action.

3. To make grants for research, pilot, experi­mental and other projects toward the solution of such problems.

4. To encourage sound use of philanthropic funds.

To Make Good GrantsEveryone who devotes thought and energy to making grants eventually concludes that wise philanthropy is no easy matter. It requires (beyond the hope of doing good), as thorough knowledge as possible of the problems to be attacked or the goals to be sought, an under­standing of the environment relative to the the problems, the best possible theories or hypotheses about the probable results of actions, a good evaluation of the persons involved, and feedback on the results of philanthropy- supported actions.

Those who have sought to realize the leadership potential inherent in foundation philanthropy also recognize that they must take the initiative in seeking organizations to receive grants. To respond solely to requests nearly guarantees that many problems will receive attention long after the opportunity to get a maximum return for dollars granted has passed, and that many goals will never be accomplished.

Because of its concern with such problems, the Board of Trustees of the Associated Founda­tion in 1963 set forth some criteria of merit and priority by which proposed grants would be evaluated.

Criteria of Merit:

• Degree of benefit to the entire community

• Capability of the organization and its personnel to achieve expected results

• Adequacy of proposed action to problems undertaken

• Assurance of cooperation with groups in the same field

• Appropriateness of timing

• Possibility of future support by other agencies

• Improbability of support from other agencies

Criteria of Priority:

• Seriousness of the problem

• Possibility of action within a reasonable time

• Use or testing of new methods and techniques

• Implementation of prior research

• Necessity of immediate action

Hazards In Foundation Grant-MakingThese criteria have been useful in judging proposals for grants from both unrestricted and restricted funds. Even so, many hazards exist in the making of grants —hazards shared by the Board, which makes the final decision, and the staff.

Missing An IdeaThe greatest one, obviously, is that an opportunity to help a particularly creative project simply may not be recognized. Since this is a respon­sibility where the staff can make the "final'' mistake as well as the first one, special efforts

are made by the staff to find whatever may be creative in every situation.

The Council on Foundations annual meetings nationally, and the Health and Welfare Institute locally, have been basic sources for every professional foundation staff member. They are excellent opportunities to get new ideas and become sensitive to new concerns. This past year, our staff members also attended meetings of the American Political Science Association, the American Society for Public Administration, the Committee for Economic Development, the National Conference on Government, the Ohio Planning Conference, the Association of Supervisors and Curriculum Development, the American Association of Junior Colleges, the National Conference on Social W ork, the Law Enforcement Institute and others.

Community Agenda Seminars, meetings with faculty members of different colleges and universities, board and committee meetings of every type, and personal contacts with leaders and other concerned citizens are part of every staff member’s job. Equally important, however, is a willingness to listen to anyone who approaches with a suggestion. This is a goal prompted not only by the responsibility to provide a service, but also because it may be the source of new knowledge and ideas.

The Hazard of Bad TimingHazards can exist in making a grant too soon, (before the project and commitment have been developed,) or in making a grant too late,(after delay has stunted the optimism required to start a new project). The first of these dangers

seems more serious. If a project contains a good idea, there is a great temptation to think that "all the details and other problems can be worked out’.' This is particularly true when the idea seems logical, and lacking only in "some group relationships’.' On the other hand, unless the group with a germinal idea has the time to work it out, the group may never get ready to move ahead.

Our foundations have attempted to circumvent these dangers by making preliminary or planning grants in several instances. In a sense, these are the most risky of all grants. The planning may not solve all the problems involved, and the project still may not be feasible. The granting foundation also may raise the expectations of the group planning a project, so that a final negative evaluation might be regarded as a serious breach of faith, or a capricious "put down” by the establishment.

The Hazard of the Implied PromiseA local foundation has a particular responsibility not to discourage grant-seeking persons or groups to the point that they lose their initiative or drive. A little encouragement and assistance, when the going is rough, sometimes result in tremendous accomplishments. Over encourage­ment, on the other hand, is dangerous because it can make a grant-seeking group think that funding is certain. Every effort must be made to clarify the role of the staff in making a thorough examination of the proposal, and to explain the responsibility of the Distribution Committee and Board for critical evaluation and final decision.

The Hazard of Personnel EvaluationRarely does the staff feel more ill at ease than when it deals with a proposal that turns almost entirely on the competence of one or two key persons. Unfortunately, the difference between success and failure often lies in a key person, and the difference between mediocrity and great success almost always is due to the quality of an individual. When the project staff is already on the scene, its ability has to be evaluated objectively. When a project is being newly established, the leadership of the respon­sible board in selecting a good project director is crucial.

On occasion, when there was a strong need for a program, the foundation staff has recommended projects to the Board although it was less than enthusiastic about the staffing of the project.The criterion of "capability of the organization and its personnel to achieve expected results" sometimes relies on an ultimate faith that the grantee board will increase its demands on the staff or, if things do not go right, will change personnel.

The Hazard of Personal InvolvementIt is accepted procedure for foundation board members not to vote on grants for organizations in which they are personally involved. But in the last analysis, it is really the integrity of the other Board members that is tested most severely, for they must not suspend their critical judgment of the merits of a proposal because a non-voting colleague probably favors it strongly.

Staff members share this hazard of personal involvement. Many times, in working with a

group which has a good idea — or which may have picked up an idea the staff member had — the foundation staff person becomes self­identified with a project.This seems to us a particularly difficult problem for a local foundation which necessarily has close ties with the agencies of its community. With the staff situation, as with that of the Board, this is a critical test of the other staff members who must be aware of problems involved, and maintain their forthrightness.

The Hazard of the Super-PlannerThe late Wilbur Bender, head of the Boston Permanent Charities Fund, in his great humility and wisdom, cautioned foundation staff and board members against thinking too highly of their ideas. Foundations must play an evaluative and critical role in their community; otherwise, they could not discriminate reasonably in allocating the scarce resources in their trust.Yet, the fact that their decisions facilitate or inhibit the hopes of grant-seekers often leads to a deference toward foundations when their decisions are being evaluated. It is unreasonable to expect this deference not to flatter the foundation personnel.

Staff processes to promote critical review of one's own work, and the give and take of board review and decision, are procedural attempts to keep one’s own judgment in perspective. The criticisms in 1969 by congressmen and by newspapers surely have had a salutary effect, also. Frank comments by those who seek and receive grants have come forward more freely, and they too are welcomed.

Two QuestionsIt would, perhaps, seem fatuous to continue a listing of "hazards''in the business of philan­thropy. The process is not only difficult; it has raised many questions to which answers always seem inadequate. We would like to note two such questions.

One is: “Should foundations make grants to provide the local matching for Federal funds?” Traditionally, foundations have focused on the private or voluntary agency working on a community problem. But in modern urban society, problems have become more complex and the needs have outgrown an approach which sharply distinguishes public and private, or governmental and non-governmental. As a matter of fact, there are many "private” agencies, profit making and non-profit, which affect "the public interest” and much governmental work is carried on by private agencies, both profit- making and tax exempt.

This reflects the typical American triumph of practicality over dogma. Many private colleges spend more tax money than some state-supported schools. Just this year past, for example, the state agreed to subventions for the CWRU Medical School, and thus provided for a greater number of physicians in the years immediately at hand than an investment in a new state medical school would have provided.

Needless to say, not every "private” agency should respond to every governmental program simply because funds are available, any more than governmental funding should be provided for every private agency simply because someone

9

feels a need exists.The answer to whether a foundation should provide local matching funds must be: “It depends'.’

The criteria of merit and priority used for every grant seem quite appropriate for deciding whether foundation and Federal funds should be used together. If a project is within the field of interest of a foundation, and if it warrants funding, the availability of Federal funds may save foundation funds, or may make feasible projects which the foundation would like to pursue but could not, without additional assistance. Grants made in response to coercion are unhealthy, whether the coercion comes from public or private funds; but no one suffers when the grants are made to accomplish legitimate goals.

Another question that is often asked is, “Why do foundations always want to get something started, but resist grants to continue a good operation?’’ To the degree that this question is based on fact, the answer comes from the nature and function of a foundation.

It should be noted first that the implications of this question do not clearly fit a community foundation. Some donors give their funds for the on-going support of designated institutions. What the community foundation form offers is a continuing review of the recipient organization, and, if circumstances demand, a re-assignment of funds to continue the purposes of the donor. The Cleveland Foundation does manage such endowment support when it can help a donor.

Although there may be an exception to this rule, when funds are left for general charitable purposes, it seems unwise for foundations to

treat those funds as endowments. Community problems range so broadly, and community needs are so great, that even the largest founda­tions could commit all their resources with no noticeable effect. Even if the funds were con­centrated in a few areas, they would soon be absorbed into on-going commitments, and needs would appear just as large.

By resisting the endowment approach, however, foundations can offer flexibility, the possibility of experimentation and the feasibility of change to their communities. Any organization whose purpose falls within the foundations program can seek support to explore a new idea, and if it works out, can find the support which gives the recipient organization time to re-allocate its own resources or find new resources. In modern society, only a foundation can offer such opportunities for creative flexibility.

Money which is not committed for continuing programs is extremely important to public and voluntary agencies alike. It permits school systems, colleges and universities, hospitals, citizen and neighborhood groups, welfare agencies or police departments to modify a practice first on a trial basis, and then, if desir­able, permanently. It also permits an ad h oc expansion of activity so that the community can work on a task that can be completed and discontinued.

This function is very important in a community, and it is one that could be totally lost if founda­tion policy did not resist pleas to provide permanent support.There may be good reasons for one year grants or five year grants, but the

policy of avoiding an endowment commitment seems sound.

The "Systems” Approach in Grant-MakingSuccesses in space exploration and other technological fields have elevated "systems engineering” to a prestigious position. The technique aims at an overview that encompasses problem areas and all the linked variables of its environment. Resources and skills are “inputs;" results and products are "outputs'.'It becomes important then-to discuss the interactions of all the parts, and how feedbackJreports on results] helps the system adjust for better output.

"System s” and "feedback” concepts are useful among those who deal with social as well as technological problems. For foundation staffs, these concepts have important implications.

First, each person is encouraged to examine a problem in terms of a broader, linked "system’.' Thus, one would probably review a problem of a school as a "subsystem” within the "educational system” of which schools, family experiences, job opportunities and the like are also parts. Attention would still center on the specific problem being considered, but the implications for other related parts of society, and the possibility of finding different levers for problem attack should be examined.

The provisions within a proposal for "feedback” are also noted. Basic questions are "How will you know the project is a success? How can you tell that it fails?” In most programs dealing with social problems, (except where they are part of a controlled experiment), it is wise to determine

whether provision has been made for continuing or intermittent reporting, and for readjusting the program to take account of the reports. Thus, an employment program might take note of successful and unsuccessful placements and provide for readjustments of methods when placements are not successful.

The “systems” concepts are useful also in a foundation’s own operations. A grant may affect the program directly funded, but it may also affect the environment (the system) in other ways. Continuing evaluation of the results of grants must go on, both in considering extension or renewal, and in suggesting new grants. Evalu­ation must include review of all the statistics available, as well as the opinions of informed and concerned persons. This “feedback” is vital to good decision-making, and imperative for grant renewals.

Evaluation and ConsultationPost-grant evaluation by staff for The Cleveland Foundation and the Greater Cleveland Associated Foundation included on-site visits for over 25 percent of the funded programs during 1969. These supplemented the regular reports requested with each “terms of grant” statement. In addi­tion, outside consultants were provided to help many grant recipients make their own review. Staff reports continued to be provided last year to distribution committees of other foundations, upon their request. These activities probably will increase under the new tax legislation.

The Cleveland Foundation Library also had a growing clientele among persons seeking grants. The Internal Revenue Service reports (form 990-A)

from all Ohio foundations are on file and are made available as soon as they are received.

In 1969, when the Tax Reform Act was before Congress, special reports were prepared on the problems being considered. Two of the issues of Challenge and R esponse, the periodical published by the foundations, received wide attention. The April, 1969 issue dealt with suggestions for regulating foundations; the other was a reprint of the May, 1968, issue reporting on questions that were considered by foundations in making a grant. Other issues in this series now covering three years, deal with the Summer Arts Festival, Community Agenda Seminars, and (in 1970) the effects of the Tax Reform Act.

In 1970, many private foundations will probably want to become trusts within The Cleveland Foundation, a public charity. Since its inception, service to donors has been regarded as a necessary aspect of serving the community's philanthropic needs. Trusts managed by the banks, and funds disbursed by the Distribution Committee can help a donor serve his philanthropic goals and find his way through the complex requirements imposed by the new tax law. If staff services only are desired, they are available as one of the original purposes of the Greater Cleveland Associated Foundation.

These are times when many difficult decisions are required in philanthropic affairs. If The Cleveland Foundation or the Greater Cleveland Associated Foundation can help, we are glad to do so.

Administration of Justice

STAFF REPORT

No problem is more central to the urban crisis than crime and the apparent inability of the criminal justice system to control it. The problem is not new. Take Cleveland 50 years ago. Then, as now, the crime rates were startling, and sweeping changes were demanded.

In 1921, The Cleveland Foundation responded by commissioning a searching analysis of the city's criminal justice system directed by Roscoe Pound and Felix Frankfurter. Included in this study, first published in 1922, were hundreds of recommendations for needed changes and improvements. The answers, how­ever, were buried under tides of inertia, false economy and a half-hidden preference for vengeance over correction.

Forty-five years later, in 1967, the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the Admin­istration of Justice re-examined the problem in depth. Again, the best minds agreed on a strategy, supported by recommendations amazingly similar to those made in the 1921 Cleveland Foundation study.

But again the tides threaten. A year after the National Crime Commission's report was published, the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders (The Kerner Commission) cited inaction on the Crime Commission's recommendations as a major reason for its own existence. One year after that, the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of

Violence (The Eisenhower Commission) said essentially the same thing.

The Cleveland Foundation and the Greater Cleveland Associated Foundation recognize the value of these past efforts. In 1966, the Associated Foundation provided funds to the Cleveland Little Hoover Commission for an updated study of the Cleveland Police Department and, more recently, assisted the Department in the analysis of such specific procedures as: selection and recruitment; public relations; vehicle mainte­nance and replacement; manpower allocation.At the same time, however, the foundations determined that their efforts must include programs aimed at the implementation of what are by now well defined goals for the criminal justice system in Greater Cleveland.

With this objective in mind, the Associated Foundation in the mid-1960’s provided funds which enabled the Cleveland Police Department to send laboratory officers to Cleveland State University for further training, to train top staff officers at the Southern Police Institute and the University of California in Los Angeles, and to provide tuition costs for students in the Police Cadet Program of Cuyahoga Community College. More recently, Associated Foundation efforts led to the creation of the Administration of Justice Advisory Committee in October of1968, and to the award of more than $200,000 during the ensuing year by the Associated Foun­dation, The Cleveland Foundation and The Ford Foundation for general support of the Committee. The three foundations again backed the Committee in 1969 with grants totaling over $250,000.

Administration of Justice Advisory Committee — Background and ReviewThe Administration of Justice Advisory Com­mittee was the initial step toward a community mechanism for bringing about much-needed, long-term coordination and change in the total Greater Cleveland administration of justice system. This eight-member civic committee was charged with the responsibilities of:

1. Undertaking research and experimental projects in the field of the administration of justice;

2. Providing consultant services and assistance, upon request, to the police, the courts, the correctional institutions, and other agencies within the administration of justice system; and,

3. Promoting community support for coordina­tion of and changes in the system of justice in Greater Cleveland.

The Committee was provided with initial operating funds of $45,000 from a Ford Founda­tion grant. Later,The Cleveland Foundation and the Greater Cleveland Associated Foundation provided an additional operating grant of $45,000.

During its first year of operation, the Com­mittee undertook such substantive programs as the establishment of a totally revised police recruit and in-service training program for the Cleveland Police Department, the creation of newsletters for the Department, revision of the County Sheriff's entire booking system, and implementation of a comprehensive security program for the Cleveland Metropolitan Housing

Authority. In doing so, the Committee estab­lished close working relationships with such public and private groups as the Cleveland Police Department, the Cleveland Public Safety and Law Department, and the Cuyahoga County Sheriff's Office, the Cleveland Municipal Court, the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court, the Cleveland Bar Association, The Greater Cleveland Growth Association, Cuyahoga Com­munity College, Case-Western Reserve University School of Law, and Kent State University.

The Criminal Justice Coordinating CouncilThe Administration of Justice Advisory Com­mittee came more and more to recognize the serious breakdown in coordination and communication among various parts of the Greater Cleveland criminal justice system. This breakdown severely hampered efforts to make needed changes and improvements.

A mechanism was needed for coordination of existing procedures and the development and implementation of new programs. Such a mechanism existed in New York City where the Vera Institute of Justice and the Mayor's Criminal Justice Coordinating Council successfully instigates needed improvements.

The Committee was able to convince key public officials that Greater Cleveland needed such a coordinating mechanism. At a luncheon meeting called by M ayor Carl B. Stokes of Cleveland on June 26,1969, Justice Bernard Botein and two staff members of the Vera Institute described the New York operation to representatives of both the public and private sector concerned with the criminal justice system. A nine-member Task

Force was appointed to determine whether such a mechanism would be appropriate to Greater Cleveland and, if so, to recommend follow- through procedures. Staff assistance was provided by the Administration of Justice Advisory Committee.

On July 23,1969, the Task Force recommended: that a Criminal Justice Coordinating Council be created of representatives from the criminal justice system and from the private sector of the community; that the Council be headed by the M ayor of Cleveland, the Presiding County Commissioner, and a representative of the Greater Cleveland Growth Association as associate chairmen; that the Administration of Justice Advisory Committee be asked to serve initially as an independent staffing agency to the Council; and that five initial council committees be created (Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Planning Committee, Public Education and Information Committee, Criminal Justice Facilities Committee, Drug and Drug Abuse Committee, and Law Enforcement Communica­tions Committee).

The luncheon participants agreed to the recom­mendations made by the Task Force, and the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council was established. The chairmen invited representatives of the public agencies and institutions and persons from the private sector to become members of the Council.

Once the Coordinating Committee had been created, the Administration of Justice Advisory Committee obtained funds for continued opera­tion and for its new task of providing staff services to the Council. By December, of 1969, an additional two years' operating funds of $252,259 had been obtained from The Ford Foundation ($157,185) and from The Cleveland Foundation and the Greater Cleveland Associated Foundation ($95,074). These funds

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council of Greater Cleveland

The CJCC is an ongoing conference of key figures in the criminal justice system and other community leaders in Cuyahoga County. Its purpose is to provide better communication among the parts of the system —law enforcement, courts, corrections, etc. —and to serve as the vehicle for system-wide change and improvement.

The Council's presiding chairman is now the M ayor of Cleveland. Its associate chairmen are the Presiding Commissioner of Cuyahoga County and the past president of the Greater Cleveland Growth Association. Forty members include judges, police officials, correctional authorities and a wide range of business, professional and academic leaders.

Programs undertaken by the Council’s six operating committees are funded by foundation grants, contri­butions from private industry and federal Omnibus Crime Control Act funds.

Staff services to the Council and to its committees are provided by the Greater Cleveland Associated Foundation's Administration of Justice Advisory Com­mittee. The AJAC's full-time staff is supported by grants from the Ford, Cleveland and Greater Cleveland Associated Foundations.

Criminal Justice Planning Committee

Drug Use and Abuse Committee

Physical Facilities Committee

Law Enforcement Communications Committee

Offender Rehabilitation Committee

Public Education and Information Committee

enabled the Committee to expand its staff from two to five members. The Committee then helped to establish four of the initial five designated Council Committees and to develop action programs.

Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Planning CommitteeBecause of its representative nature, the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council became the vehicle for comprehensive county planning to obtain Federal funds under the Omnibus Crime Control A ct.The first Council committee formed, accordingly, was the Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Planning Committee, chaired by Mr. Harry H. Stone.

The Council entered into a planning contract with the Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency (NOACA) which had been delegated planning responsibility for the seven-county area in N.E. Ohio by the State of Ohio. The Council's Planning Committee sought out the needs of the various agencies of the criminal justice system and, with the assistance of the Administration of Justice Committee staff and outside consultants, completed the 1970 Criminal Justice Plan for Cuyahoga County for inclusion into the NOACA plan, which was in turn incorporated into the State plan.

The County plan called for 27 programs covering all aspects of the criminal justice system and requested nearly $1.25 million in federal funds. In March, the state announced tentative allocation of $2.2 million in federal action funds for the NOACA region.This meant that for

Cuyahoga County, all but $60,000 of the requested $1.25 million would be available for 1970.

Criminal Justice Facilities CommitteeConfronted with the conditions of city and county jails and of the area's crowded and dispersed court systems, as well as the need for additional police and sheriff's facilities, the Criminal Justice Facilities Committee recognized that the question was not whether improvement was necessary, but rather how it should come about. At the direction of Chairman H. Chapman Rose, president of the Cleveland Bar Association, staff visited Dayton, Detroit, Chicago, Minneap­olis, Philadelphia and Washington, D .C., where recent attacks were made on similar problems.

M ayor Stokes and the County Commissioners agreed with a committee recommendation and pledged $25,000 each to meet the expenses of a consultant, with an additional $7,000 to be paid by the Greater Cleveland Growth Association, for a total of $57,000. A request for matching funds of $57,000 was made under the Federal Omnibus Crime Control Act to correlate the consultants’ findings with architectural and construction funding.

Space Utilization Analysts (SUA) of Los Angeles was employed by the committee to recommend concrete solutions, and to provide a detailed list of rooms needed to accommodate Cuyahoga County’s criminal justice system until the year 2000 .

SUA’s work began on December 1 and is expected to be completed by early Spring.

Public Education and Information CommitteeThis committee (chaired by A. A. Sommer, attorney), with cooperation by the Cleveland Police Department, has undertaken an auto theft prevention campaign as its first major project. The program will involve greater coordi­nation among the elements of the criminal justice system and an information campaign directed to both the general public and the schools.

Auto theft is a major problem in Cuyahoga County, despite vigorous police efforts. About 72 cars a day are stolen in Cleveland alone.The 1969 total was 22,279, a 100% increase in two years.

Research done for the committee, covering 15 cities and a number of nationally recognized authorities, showed some correlation between auto theft prevention campaigns and the auto theft rate. Thefts drop during campaigns and increase when they end. However, since no scientific research has ever been conducted into auto theft prevention, it was decided to include the first comprehensive research and evaluation ever done in this area in the Cleveland program.

A hard-hitting information campaign has been aimed at the 200,000 high school and junior high school students in the county. Cooperating are the police departments, insurance companies, sports and entertainment personalities, and, in scheduling, the Federation of Women's Clubs.

A proposal has been submitted to the State of Ohio for $16,000 in Omnibus Crime Control

Act funds for a prototype information program for the schools.

A m ajor share of this $200,000 program is expected to come from the insurance industry. The Greater Cleveland Associated Foundation has made a grant of up to $35,000 to match, on a $1 for $3 basis, insurance industry contributions. Funds are also being sought from other sources.

Drug and Drug Abuse CommitteeThe first project of this committee, chaired by attorney Charles F. Clarke, was a Drug Abuse Seminar in November, 1969. During this three- day conference (co-sponsored by the Cleveland Academy of Medicine) nationally-known experts briefed more than 500 secondary school teachers and counselors, judges, police officers and others directly concerned with the problem. A $15,000 Cleveland Foundation grant, partially reimbursed by Federal Omnibus Crime Control Act funds, supported the conference and a subsequent educational campaign to disseminate its results.

Three areas of current concern are: efforts to determine the scope of the drug problem locally and to seek effective methods of dealing with it; to develop educational programs for young people, teachers, parents and personnel of the criminal justice system; and to create a mechanism for the treatment of the medical problems of young drug users who are alienated from the larger community, including its established medical facilities.

ProspectThe Associated Foundation cannot continue indefinitely operating the Administration of

Justice Advisory Committee. Foundation policy dictates against continuing operations for the same reasons it limits continuing grants. For that reason, we are looking for a way to continue the work of the Committee under other auspices.

The best prospect now is that the Administra­tion of Justice Advisory Committee, which provides professional staff services, will be taken over by a consortium of universities and colleges.

Finding a permanent, non-foundation base for this function is a foremost concern of foundation staff. We hope to make recommendations on this subject early in 1971.

Meanwhile, the crime rate continues to rise, but so does the determination of the Cleveland community to come successfully to grips with the problem.

The Aged

STAFF REPORT

Cleveland has been one of the cities in the United States to pioneer in a number of services specifically for older persons. The Cleveland Foundation has helped initiate several programs which were later replicated in other cities. In the decade just ended, in the field of aging, the Foundation granted more than $300,000 for buildings and equipment, $600,000 for individuals (pensions, etc.), $526,000 for special programs, $444,600 for research, and $444,718 for support or expansion of programs.

In 1969, The Cleveland Foundation received the income from the J. Ambrose and Jessie Wheeler Purcell Fund, a new fund, one-half of which was designated for care for the elderly, which gave impetus to a closer look at programs for the aged in this community. As a result, the Foundations more than doubled the grants to programs for the aged — $341,022, as contrasted with $145,471 of 1968.

Included in the grant projects are new community service programs in which Cleveland pioneered. The Foundation, in 1954, made a grant for support of the first Golden Age Center. Since that time, three Golden Age Centers in Cleve­land—the Ernest J. Bohn, the Lucia J. Bing, and Riverview —have been supported by grants from The Cleveland Foundation.

The Cleveland Foundation gave initial and continuing support to the nursing home study project of the Welfare Federation, which has provided for the nation in-depth information not

previously available on standards and practices in this field.

The Cleveland Homemaker Service was started in 1966 with a grant of $120,000 over a three- year period to develop a program of home health aid and other home care services. Many elderly clients are served by this program.

In 1966 a grant was made for the development of the Senior Information Center of the Welfare Federation, which has provided referral infor­mation for specific services to the elderly. This program is supported in part by Cuyahoga County and the City of Cleveland. An additional grant of $15,871 was made to this program by The Cleveland Foundation in December, 1969.

The Distribution Committee also approved a grant of $16,500 to support an effort by the Cleveland Society for the Blind to identify the needs of an estimated 12,000 older adults affected by varying degrees of sight impairment, who do not know where or how to get what is available.

Foundation money, carefully invested, has helped isolate and illuminate problem areas, showing where and how action may be profitable. The community, however, has not made a major financial commitment commensurate with the number of persons to be served and their problems.

Who Are the Aged?All nationwide demographic projections agree that two segments of the population are going to continue to increase in proportion to the total population: young people, under 30 years of age; and the group 65 years or older. Between the years of 1960 and 1990 the group 65 years

or older in Cuyahoga County will have increased by about 50 percent. This means a total in 1990 of 225,550 persons over 65 in Cuyahoga County.

Another important statistic should not be over­looked: an estimated increase of some 30 percent between 1970 and 1990 in the number of house­holds headed by persons 65 and older.

One compelling problem of the aged is measured not in years, but in dollars. Nationally, 75 percent of the aged are classified a s ‘'poor;'' that is, they have incomes under $1,600 per year. 30 percent of the aged couples are "poor;” their incomes are less than $2,100 per year. In Cleveland about 40 percent of the aged group 65-74 years, live on incomes below $2,000 and 55 percent below $3,000. O f those over 75 years, 70 percent live on less than $2,000 a year and 80 percent on less than $3,000.

O f the estimated 170,000 elderly persons in Cuyahoga County, approximately 4,200 are cared for in homes for the aged and nursing homes. Another 4,000 reside in public housing projects. The remaining 162,000 either head individual households or are cared for by their families or relatives.

The NeedsThe elderly and major groups concerned with their welfare agree fundamentally on these primary needs for services:

1. Income assistance, including part-time employment;

2. Health care: general, outpatient, and home care;

3. Housing;

4. Coordinated personal assistance services (i.e., shopping, transportation, home care assistance);

5. Accessibility of services and personal safety;

6. Social relationships;

7. Custodial care and additional institutional and nursing home care.

Income assistance programs have been accepted as a public responsibility since 1936 and the establishment of the Social Security System.For the many for whom Social Security is inadequate — and for whom no sufficient private incomes are available —Aid for the Aged pay­ments are available. In spite of the fact that these payments amounted to approximately six million dollars in Cuyahoga County last year, there remained almost intolerable fiscal burdens for the aged poor. These are properly govern­mental concerns.

Health care, a major drain on the income of the aged, has been treated as a separate problem. Medicare provides funds for patients over 65. When the needs go beyond Medicare, and when the aged person qualifies for public assistance (in Ohio), a supplementary Medicaid program becomes operative. Persons with very low income who do not qualify for public assistance receive no assistance under this program in Ohio, and are forced to turn to over-extended voluntary resources. Even then, for many individuals and families in this age group, the requirements so deplete their resources that they become public charges.

An almost equal problem in health care is the delivery system. In part, the aged share this

21

problem with the total population, but special inadequacies in outpatient treatment and medical home care are exacerbated by the lack of physi­cians and nurses attracted to geriatrics and by physical facilities that pay little attention to the problems of the aged.

It is almost true that if income assistance for the aged were adequate, housing would not be a problem. However, housing means more than a roof or a warm, safe room. It is linked to the problem of social isolation, which is so devas­tating to mental and social capabilities. The type and location of housing lessens or heightens the problems of shopping, recreation, health services and employment. Housing can make the life of the aged easier, or, if not properly designed and located, can increase the need for personal assistance.

These are examples of the problems which the aged identify for themselves —when they are asked. Interestingly enough, however, it is relatively unusual for governmental or voluntary programs to involve the aged in describing their own problems, or in devising solutions to them. Almost none of the local boards of agencies serving the aged have an aged client on them.

Traditionally, modern society seeks to infantilize the aged, especially the aged poor. This patron­izing approach often increases the problems that occur in the natural course of things. Retirement as many agencies define it, often deprives the community of talent and energy, and robs indi­viduals of their purpose.

Involvement by the aged in assessing their own problems and in searching for solutions was an objective of foundation grants to The Older Persons Program of the Council for Economic Opportunity of Greater Cleveland. This program, supported last year by two Cleveland Founda­tion grants totaling $122,164 and Federal matching funds of $131,106, ties in with func­tioning community agencies with the primary aim of promoting independence and self help among the elderly. The goals of this program are best summarized as helping the aged to help

themselves, and to maintain an active role in the civic and economic life of Greater Cleveland.

Directions for 1970Funds from The Cleveland Foundation to help solve problems of the aged are certainly limited when measured against the needs which philan­thropic dollars can reasonably be expected to meet.

Foundation philanthropy can do nothing signifi­cant on the problem of income assistance except, possibly, in facilitating part-time employment.

Providing medical services is similarly proscribed, except for occasional support of a research project, or a demonstration of how services might be made more accessible. For a foundation that does not wish to build housing, practical projects in this area are limited to encouraging the best planning, and to experimenting with social service techniques which can feasibly be replicated, or which can establish standards for general service areas.

As in most problem areas, Foundation grants in 1970 in the field of the aged should encourage the expansion of approaches which have demon­strated value, and encourage finding new ones to crowd out those which have proven inade­quate. Our emphasis, therefore, must be on:

1. Helping agencies find optimum mix and use of public and private resources;

2. Encouraging projects which involve the aged in management and self-help;

3. Demonstrating new techniques and systems for extending services, with emphasis on inter­agency cooperation beyond any combinations now operative; and

4. Continuing evaluation of results, assuming that no agency or program now in use is unalterably locked in, making sure that change, improvement and innovation are always possible.

Education —1969-70

STAFF REPORT

The whole field of education, from Headstart to Graduate School, came under intensive scrutiny and criticism during this past year. Education was beset by problems which were recognizable and numerous — and easy solutions proved to be elusive.

Disruptions of the educational process by students were of national concern, and the Greater Cleveland area was not exempt. The most often recurring themes of student dissent center on two words —"relevance” and "participation'.’ Students emphasize the need for relevance in an outdated curriculum and for teachers to face the facts of today’s life. For the black students, "relevance” also means the development of black studies courses and the hiring of more black teachers and professors. Students demanding "participation” want a decision-making voice in in matters directly related to them, from the choosing of a university president to the forma­tion of a high school dress code. The students also want to exercise the rights of adult citizens, starting now to prepare for an active role in the mainstream of American 'life.

Another major problem is the lack of adequate school financing. Voters are turning down a large number of levies and bond issues. Across the state in 1969, Ohio voters defeated 61.7 percent of the bond issues submitted and 56 percent of new school levies. Although education still rates as a priority to most people, they seem increas­

ingly reluctant to approve tax increases or renewals. Many citizens apparently feel real estate taxes are as high as they can go, though these taxes are the primary means of support for Ohio public schools. In December, 1969, 10 school districts closed their doors for lack of funds and about 100 sought funds in special December elections. Central city areas in Ohio are particularly hard hit not only because school real estate taxes are piled on costly municipal demands, but also because of a declining tax base. For example, the Cleveland public school system’s income was $3,000,000 less than anticipated.

The challenge of financing public and parochial schools is most crucial. In 1965, The Cleveland Foundation and the Greater Cleveland Asso­ciated Foundation, together with other Ohio foundations, supported a project to evaluate elementary and secondary education aid to the state's public schools. Many of the recommenda­tions the consultants’ made then are still valid. Two such recommendations are (1) establishment of state foundation programs of specific amounts for each elementary and secondary pupil, and (2) adoption of a resource equalizer grant to assure that districts with average and below average valuation receive the same amount per pupil as the wealthier districts. Quality educa­tion requires money. To approach true equality of educational opportunity, it is evident that the state must accept more fiscal responsibility. In 1966, Ohio ranked forty-third in the percentage of dollar support for education; today the state ranks forty-ninth.These factors underscore the need for re-evaluation of the state school founda­tion program and action on state tax reform.

Demand for Citizen ParticipationWhile voters in general were concerned about rising real estate taxes, and our younger citizens about relevance and participation, the urban citizen, more than his rural or suburban neighbor, was demanding increased citizen participation in running the schools. The demand for com­munity control and decentralization was repetitive in almost every m ajor city. The Cleve­land Public Schools proposed a community relations program, but it was rejected by citizens who felt they had not had an opportunity to participate adequately in planning it. The schools are still looking for more meaningful community engagement in public education.

The Foundation’s examination of important educational issues in 1969 has resulted in grant programs which cover a wide range, including curriculum development, building programs and demonstration projects such as the “Street Academies” dealing with “dropouts;” specific programs to develop educational leadership and to promote increased citizen participation.

Curriculum, an area in which little systematic and relevant work has been done, received priority attention from the Cleveland Board of Education and the foundations responded in a like manner. A matching grant of $23,000 was made to the Cleveland Board of Education to help facilitate the work of its Curriculum Review Committee.This Committee evaluated the cur­riculum of Cleveland’s elementary schools and at a later date, will assess the program of second­ary schools. The recommendations following this evaluation have lead the Cleveland school systems to begin work on a new system for

curriculum development and implementation in the elementary schools.

Other grants in 1969 for programs of the Cleve­land Board of Education include $137,000 for the implementation of a new department of Family Life Education and $9,960 for training and leadership development of school admin­istrators. A total of $184,960 was granted for programs for the Cleveland public schools and indicates the intent of the foundations to assist the Cleveland schools to meet today's challenges of urban education.

While attention was being focused on curriculum reform, the dropout rate in the Cleveland schools had risen from 12.4 percent in school year 1967-68, to 13.9 percent in 1968-69, while the overall dropout rate for the state is six percent according to the State Board of Education. Although the Cleveland schools were able to reach some of those who had dropped out through its extension high school, Adult Educa­tion Center and work-study programs (3.5 percent of the school leavers), many young people were still lost to the educational process.

The Foundation staff, recognizing the importance of keeping youngsters in school or helping them return, worked closely with the Urban League of Cleveland in the development of a special program for dropouts. The program will include “Street Academies” in neighborhood storefronts with workers to recruit dropouts and give them personal attention, an academy of "transition” to provide students with more traditional courses and prepare them for prep school and gradua­tion from prep school to lead to college entrance. Two other local foundations (The George Gund

Foundation and The M artha Holden Jennings Foundation) participated in the funding of this experimental program .The goal is to help some young people and to devise ways which the schools can use to bring more young people into the educational process in an environment in which they can be successful.

The need is great for a plan to help the community understand the schools' educational objectives, to take part in drafting and to support these objectives, to provide an effective channel for citizens to be heard and, most important, to assume some accountability for student attain­ment. Responsibility for the success or failure in learning does not belong totally to the learner; more of the burden must be assumed by teacher, school and home. The educational experience must be made more intellectually, emotionally and socially relevant to the main currents of a child's life. Increased citizen participation does not in and of itself deal with these factors, but it may provide the best organized vehicle to raise them to program status.

The age-old controversy over institutions which produce our teachers and administrators is now more heated than ever. As a result, foundations are going to be asked to help develop schools of education as graduate schools and as research centers. Schools of education at the same time will seek more effective relationships with school systems and local communities. The needs of schools of education do not, however, preclude consideration of other problem aspects of the universities which include academic reform, research, and making higher education more accessible to minority students.

Research of policy import in education has received too little attention in the past. All of us have preferred action to inquiry, a good tendency which can be self-defeating. The complexity of the educational process in schools is often over­simplified. This was demonstrated in a study by Dr. Elyse S. Fleming and Dr. Ralph G. Antonnen of Case Western Reserve University, funded by The Cleveland Foundation, which dealt with the relationship between ability group tests given their students and the expectancy level of teachers. Popular beliefs had indicated that high test scores increased the expectancy level of teachers and the students consequently tended to make significant progress. The study reported that the way in which teachers influenced pupil behavior is a far more subtle and complex phe­nomenon than was generally believed. Teachers are not so much influenced by a pupil’s test results, but tend rather to assess him on the basis of previously developed attitudes and experiences with the individual student. Studies such as this suggest that more basic research might be very profitable for school systems.

Solutions to the many problems of education still seem elusive. Much more effective attention, coupled with sufficient resource allocation, is still needed to achieve quality and equality of education. The development of relevant cur­riculum, new approaches to the selection and training of educational personnel and a thorough look at early childhood education, will continue to present opportunities for foundations in 1970.

Cultural Affairs

STAFF REPORT

Prospects for Cultural Affairs in the 1970’s might seem, at first glance, pessimistic.The Musical Arts Association is trying to meet a million dollar deficit, its financial liquidity almost totally gone. And the Summer Arts Festival, which had such tremendous promise, is seriously curtailed.

This is a story in which our experience parallels that of the country It is not, of course, a balanced story. An encouraging sign is the successful involvement of young persons in cultural activi­ties. The Hawken School Arts Festival, the PACE Summer School for the Arts, the Cleveland Schools Summer Program in the Arts, the Sup­plementary Center programs in music and visual arts, the exciting workshops of the Summer Arts Festival, the Karamu music and dramatic pro­grams and workshops, the West Side Arts Program, and the continuing work of the Music School Settlement in some areas are examples that enliven the picture of the year just past.

Experience of the past few years forcefully reminds us that thoughtful planning is a neces­sity for rewarding foundation grants in Cultural Affairs. A survey completed by one of our summer interns identified over 200 formally organized groups with some type of arts pro­gram. The energy and interests of these groups represent important community resources.

Most Cleveland Foundation grants for cultural activities are from The George C. and Marion S. Gordon Fund. In 1964 when the Fund was estab­lished, a preliminary decision was made by the Distribution Committee on the advice of friends

of Mrs. Gordon to make a five-year commitment to the Cleveland Orchestra ($50,000 a year), the Cleveland Institute of Music ($20,000 a year), and the Music School Settlement ($10,000 a year). This is the year to review these allocations.

In addition, over the years, the Musical Arts Association has received from the Gordon Fund $40,000 a year for five years (to be completed in 1971) toward the cost of Blossom Center, and the Cleveland Institute of Music received $75,000 to assist in its joint program with Case Western Reserve University. The Music School Settlement received a grant of $20,000 from Convers, Goodman, and Raible funds for reha­bilitation of some properties which were acquired. For two years, $50,000 a year was granted to the Summer Arts Festival from unrestricted and child care funds. The Distribution Committee also has made grants to the Cleveland Board of Education for special services by the Cleveland Orchestra, to assist the Parma Civic Symphony, and the Cleveland Philharmonic, for the Chamber Music Society, for Karamu House and the Lake­wood Shakespearian Festivals, among others.The successes of many of these grants seem to provide ample incentive for broad investments to help launch programs when opportunities arise.

Any proposal that would lead to a system for infusing fiscal strength into cultural institutions would be a matter of highest priority, but no one seems to have the key to that puzzle.

Proposal: A Greater Cleveland Arts CouncilMetropolitan arts councils are important in the public-voluntary mechanism for fostering cultural activities which includes state arts councils and

the National Foundation for the Arts. Local councils have been well developed and utilized in several metropolitan areas and seem to have potential for achieving the following goals:

1. Focusing public concerns for all the arts.

2. Planning and coordinating (communications) agency for cultural affairs.

3. Attracting public funds allocated through the national and state arts councils, and providing a point of coordination for their programs.

4. Helping needed new projects to get started.

5. Encouraging voluntary support for the arts.

It seems particularly appropriate for leaders in the community to consider re-establishing an Arts Council. Membership of a new Greater Cleveland Arts Council would need to be carefully chosen to guarantee broad representation. The council also should make special efforts to find a very able executive ambitious to make his reputation. The budget for this operation should be approxi­mately $45-50,000 a year with special projects funded through special grants.

Strong arguments have been made for estab­lishment of a Greater Cleveland Arts Council. President Nixon appealed to Congress on behalf of the National Arts Foundation. In all proba­bility, even more public funds will be required before 1980 if the great cultural organizations are to be continued. As these funds become available, demands will be made on them for many popular projects of dubious distinction.If a metropolitan arts council can, by its work, make cultural quality the concern of a broader public, the allocation of public funds may be much more effective.

Proposal: Regional OperaThe problems of the Lake Erie Opera Company this past year have prompted numerous sugges­tions for regional opera that might better match fiscal and talent resources with audience interest. One suggestion is to establish a new profes­sional opera company, supported by contributions from all of northeastern Ohio. We have been approached by both the Columbus Foundation and the Richland County Foundation (Mansfield) and have talked with the principals (a conductor and lyric tenor) who are providing leadership in this project.

A more modest suggestion calls for an annual "Student Opera Festival” during which students of the Cleveland Institute of Music, Oberlin College Music School, and the Kent State Music School would present one or two operas. Such an enterprise might be arranged by a metropoli­tan arts council or by the schools acting in concert. An obvious advantage of student opera is that audience expectations would be in line with what could be delivered. In addition, local talent would have greater access to an audience than at present, and the experimentation needed for a creative opera tradition could be carried on with less cost than in a professional setting.

The Start of a New Decade

It would be presumptuous to use the opening of a new decade to try to predict the future and the foundations'responses to what will come. At the same time, it would be foolish not to review the decade just ended as a base for planning the current year.

Paul Ylvisaker, when he was director of the public affairs division of the Ford Foundation, described the concept of "social jiu-jitsu” which recognized the importance of philanthropy's trying to help guide onrushing trends as con­trasted to trying to provide the driving force for society or major changes in direction. To be most effective, philanthropy must recognize factual trends in social movement instead of being over­whelmed by rhetoric or the exigencies of the moment.

The story of the 1960's is perhaps best under­stood as a paradox. Substantial progress against social ills was made amid tensions that threatened to destroy the very attitudes that made progress possible. Racism and its effects, and poverty and its destructiveness shared priority among the concerns of the past decade.The under­standable impatience of the blacks and the young who believe in our nations greatest hopes, and the fears of many who see their own successes and hopes being eroded by inflation or impla­cable change, obscure the successes that may permit historians of some future time to call the sixties a period of progress.

Neither our impatience nor a short memory should obscure the fact that our economy has been growing in absolute terms as well as in terms of inflated dollars. Further, the percentage

of the population with incomes below the poverty level is going down, not up.

People in Poverty

(millions)Percent in Poverty

1960 40 22.211965 33 17.311968 25 12.81

While individual programs to help the poor increase their stake in society may have successes and failures, the overall governmental and eco­nomic system is working toward our national goals. To plan best for improvements, each program deserves critical scrutiny with an honest facing of the facts. One such fact is that there are successes.

Not only are many of the poor moving out of poverty, but blacks, too, are moving slowly toward greater incomes compared to whites. Great care will need to be exercised as attempts are made to decrease inflationary pressures so that this trend is not slowed or reversed.

One favorable trend on which we must build is the relative improvement in educational achieve­ment for black Americans. Appropriate questions must be asked about the quality of schooling for non-whites, but the following chart shows both the general aspiration for education common to black and white Americans and a substantial closing of what was a tragic gap.

Median Years of School Completed for Persons 25 to 29 Years Old, by Sex in U.S. Metropolitan Areas

Central SuburbanCities Rings

1960 1968 1960 1968

MalesWhite 12.6 12.7 12.5 12.7Black 11.3 12.3 11.1 12.4

FemalesWhite 12.4 12.5 12.4 12.6Black 11.5 12.2 9.9 12.3

The American family has traditionally been a base for social, educational, and economic devel­opment. Like other institutions, the family suffers from the privations of poverty and prejudice. The next chart, however, challenges a simple concept of family instability often used to the disadvantage of Negroes.

Percent Children Under 18 Years Old Living With Both Parents in U.S. M etropolitan Areas

Family Income Total White Black

Under $4,000 36 51 24$4,000 to $5,999 74 78 67$6,000 to $7,999 89 91 80$8,000 to $9,999 93 94 89$10,000 to $14,999 95 96 93$15,000 and over 96 97 95

In the search for better housing, better schooling, and greater personal safety, white and black Americans have moved in increasing numbers to suburban areas. The central city population is becoming a smaller part of the total metropolitan area. The following graph diagrams this for Cuyahoga County and the City of Cleveland. It should also be noted that in percentage and in

actual numbers, the counties surrounding Cuyahoga are expected to grow faster in the next two decades. While there is no likelihood that the central cities and older metropolitan counties will not be the greatest centers of power and problems, regionalization of the labor force, industrial and tax base, and the megalopolis continues to develop.

Population Trends

• • • Cuyahoga County

D , ,. - ClevelandPopulation(millions) H K B Suburban Counties

2.0

1.8

1.6

1910 1930 1950 1970 1990

Data — Regional Planning Commission

Social EnvironmentThe tensions that limited our successes in the Sixties included conscription for an unpopular war, inflation, recognized but continuing in­justices, and an erosion of confidence in the ability and desire of some of our institutions and our leaders to meet these challenges. It would be heartening to believe that in the Seventies, by the two-hundredth anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, the nation will reaffirm its goals, re-establish ways for groups to work together, and determinedly move toward opening to every person opportunities for full develop­ment. This would not mean a radical change in goals or structure from those of the past few years; many programs have helped move our nation toward goals far from fulfilled. But it would demand recognizing and articulating again the respect for each person and institution that Americans have claimed as their tradition.

A new mood exists in the community emphasiz­ing an old dimension of our concerns. The change, the dissent, and the new rhetoric have brought reaction. The attention to new programs for black citizens has raised the question as to whether the problems of other groups were being ignored. Historically they have not been, but it is time again to re-examine the situation. How does "Black power” equate with the nationality ties of Cleveland's ethnic societies that have been so powerful from time to time in our history?Do today's circumstances suggest the need for a new recognition of "Irish power” or "Polish power”? Do the ties of these ethnic (racial) groups serve to help individuals and groups in their personal achievement? Do they serve to establish a feeling of self-respect, of belonging, that strengthens our pluralistic society? Do they make it easier for people to cooperate? Or do they increase inter-group tensions and frictions?

The many questions about the impact of ethnicity in today’s society should be faced as frankly as questions of race, and not ignored in planning.

Other Environmental ProblemsA new focus of activity, which deserves special

recognition in 1970, is on the quality of physical environment. For us who live around Lake Erie this is not a new concern. In the 1950’s The Cleveland Foundation made its first grants to the Lake Erie Watershed Conservation Founda­tion for studies of water problems in the six- county area. In 1964, the Greater Cleveland Associated Foundation and The Cleveland Foundation made grants to a restructured Lake Erie Watershed Conservation Foundation to help it begin a major reorganization for research and operational activities.The Three Rivers Watershed District was an outcome of that grant. Last year we made a grant to Case Western Reserve University and the City of Cleveland for a research project to isolate exotic pollutants from water.

Today the attention of the public centers on air, water, noise, and other types of environmental pollution. Much needs to be learned if the action of interested groups is to be constructive. We will cooperate in 1970 with other foundations and groups so that the important problems in this area can be given intelligent attention.

In 1963, the A ssoc ia ted Foundation stated its g oa l as help ing to d ev e lop "an urban society in w hich each person can reach his fu llest potential, m ake the g reatest p ossib le contribution , and receive in fu ll the rew ards o f his participation'.' This led to grant program s by both foundations in education , em p loy m en t opportunities, race relations, housing, leadersh ip developm ent, and fo r o th er civic affairs. T hese b road areas will continue to be m ajor concerns as the community builds on w hat has been learned and as new talents are brou ght into leading roles.

The Cleveland Foundation Annual Report for 1969

34 The Cleveland Foundation

The Foundation's fifty-sixth year of philanthropic service to Greater Cleveland was one of sub­stantial growth. The book value of The Cleveland Foundation's capital increased about $7.5 million and totaled $80,818,076 as of December 31,1969. Market value of these assets was nearly $112 million. Certain of these trusts currently provide only partial, but eventually will provide complete benefit to The Cleveland Foundation.

During 1969, a total of $7,609,372 was received from 135 donors as new gifts to principal. Upon authorization of the Distribution Committee $5,744,775 was disbursed for a wide range of community needs and activities. This amount includes funds provided for grants by the Greater Cleveland Associated Foundation.

A list of various funds which constitute The Cleveland Foundation’s endowment as well as a detailed accounting of the grants made, is set forth later in this Report.

Nine New Trusts EstablishedThe following new funds became effective in 1969:

Marie Louise Gollan Fund —This fund was established with a gift of $50,000 under a trust agreement executed by the late Mrs. Gollan. Income is designated for support of the Central Volunteer Bureau at the Cleveland Welfare Federation.

Tillie A. Kaley and Warren R. Kaley Memorial Fund —Created under a trust agreement by the late Warren Kaley, this fund has a value of $400,334 with income to be used one-third for the Lutheran Home for the Aged, one-third for services to needy elderly people and one-third for services to needy children, including the mentally retarded and emotionally disturbed.

The J. Ambrose and Jessie Wheeler Purcell Memorial Fund —This fund with a value of $4,727,166 was estab­lished under a trust agreement by the late Jessie Wheeler Purcell. Income is to be used for assistance to needy, aged persons and for sick, crippled or needy children including their education.

The Aloy Memorial Scholarship Fund —Created with a $14,932 bequest from the late Mildred J. Ruskin, this fund will provide scholarships for needy and deserving students at Mather College of Case Western Reserve University.

William Curtis Morton, Maud Morton,Kathleen Morton Fund —This fund with a value of $1,013,000 was created under the will of the late William C. Morton and his two sisters. Income is designated in varying amounts for the Medical School of Case Western Reserve University for research in eye diseases, to the Cleveland Clinic for similar purposes, to the Cleveland Museum of Art, the Musical Arts Association, the Natural Science Museum and for scholarships at Case Western Reserve University.

Frank E. Shepardson Fund —This unrestricted fund with a value of $160,000 was created under the will of the late Frank Shepardson.

Henrietta Teufel Memorial Fund —Under the will of the late Miss Teufel this $700,000 fund was established with income to be used for medical research.

Ida Beznoska Fund —With a value of $127,090 this unrestricted fund was created under the will of the late Mrs. Beznoska.

Mildred E. Hommel and Arthur G. Hommel Memorial Fund —This fund with a value of $196,523 was estab­lished under the will of the late Mildred Hommel. Income is to be used for educational purposes.

Additions to Existing FundsThe Fisher Fund was increased by $87,500 through a bequest from the late Bertha C. Fisher.

The C leveland R ecreational Arts Fund was increased by $2,895 through gifts from The Raymond John Wean Foundation, The Louis E. and Marcia M. Emsheimer Charitable Trust and from gifts made by the following contri­butors in memory of Walter L. Seelbach: Mr. and Mrs. A. D. Barczak, Mr. and Mrs. F. W. Milbourn, Jr., Mr. and Mrs. H. McKnight Emerson, Mrs. Charlotte M. Hays, Laurel School Student Activities, Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Company,The G. and C. Foundry Company, Mrs. J. B. Moore, Mr. and Mrs. J. L. Mercer, Mr. and Mrs. T. T. Lloyd, Mr. and Mrs. R. Jaite, Mrs. I. W. Distel, Mrs. William R. Jack, Golden Foundry Company —Division of Woodward Company, Messrs. T. J. Frank, Roger Hageboeck, John T. Hageboeck, Harry Frank, Donald McDonald, William C. Bell, Kankakee Foundry Company, Donald H. Workman, Gray and Ductile Iron Founders’ Society, Mr. and Mrs. C. L. Nash and Family, Ohio Stove Company — Gray Iron Casting Division, American Colloid Company, Chambers, Bering, Quilan Company, H. C. Macaulay Foundry Company, Mr. and Mrs. Byron Dalton, Mr. and Mrs. James G. May, American Foundrymen's Society, Grede Foundation, Inc.,Mr. and Mrs. R. G. Wieland, Mrs. William M. Folberth, Renfrow Foundry, Mid-America Chapter — American Society of Travel Agents, J.W . Hemphill Agency (employees), Cleveland Home and Flower Show, Mrs. R. H. Narrigan,Mr. J. H. Gardner, Mrs. J. E. Franz for the Franz

family, Miss Amy E. Miller, Midwest Foundry Com pany General Foundry and Manufacturing Com pany Mrs. Cyril C. James, Mrs. John Mansell, Mrs. George Barbieri, Mrs. William Gooding, Mrs. Robert Hine, Mrs. Alex Teyral, Mrs. J. I. Leimgruber, Mrs. Daniel M. Wertman, Mrs. Norma Jaynes, Mrs. Molly Mercer, Mrs. Harriet Heyl, Mrs. Florette Vaughn, Mrs. Janet Brooke, Mrs. Kay Rhodehamel, Mr. and Mrs. Kurt L. Seelbach, Henry Trenkamp, Jr., Miss Helen R. Hines, Mr. and Mrs. E. E. Lehmann,Mr. and Mrs. Louis E. Lehmann, Mr. and Mrs. John E. Butler, Sibley Machine and Foundry Corporation, George W. Cannon Family, Mr. and Mrs. Robert Krebs, Mrs. Else B. Gerstenberger, Mr. and Mrs. Donald Fosnaugh with Becky,Mr. and Mrs. A. D. Simmons, Great Lakes Founders and Machine Corporation, Gray Iron Founders' Association, Mrs. William H. Crangle, Forest City Foundries Company.

"Non-trust" gifts were received from the following donors who expressed the desire that the corpus of their gifts be used for specific purposes.

A gift of $15,000 was received from the Elizabeth R ieley A rm ington Trust for the education of children in the same manner as set forth in the Charles Rieley Armington Fund; the D onald A. and Jane C. S tark Scholarsh ip Fund received an additional contribution of $1 2 ,0 0 0 from the Donald A. and Jane C. Stark Charitable Trust; a contribution of $2 0 ,0 0 0 earmarked for the Goodwill Industries Building Fund was received from The G eorge and M ay M argaret A ngell Trust.

Memorial Gifts and The Combined FundThe Combined Fund (so-called because contri­butions are combined for investment purposes) was increased by $82,932 in new gifts and additions to existing funds in 1969.

The Frederick R. and B ertha Specht Mautz S cholarsh ip Fund for scholarships at Capital University was increased by a $3,000 gift from Dr. Mautz. Dr. Yurick again contributed to the fund which he established some years ago.

The A d ele C orning C hisholm M em orial received an additional gift of $500 from the Alvah S. and Adele C. Chisholm Memorial Foundation. The Josep h E. K ew ley M em orial Fund was established by Mrs. Florence H. Kewley with a gift of about $10,000. Mr. and Mrs. R obert S. Latham added $100 to the fund previously estab­lished in their names. The W illiam Fred Mackay and C ora Carlisle M ackay M em orial Fund was created by a $1 0 ,0 0 0 gift from a trust established by William F. Mackay. Income is to be used for indigent aged persons. A gift was received from Dr. and Mrs. C. W. Wyckoff in memory of C hristopher Bruce Narten.

The John F. O berlin and John C. O berlin Fund for law scholarships at Case Western Reserve University was increased by a gift of $11,219 from John F. Oberlin.

A gift to the W inifred Fryer M em orial Fund in memory of Mrs. Minnie Haber was received from Mrs. Sidney S. Scheibel and the Robert L. and Lois M. Hays Foundation made a contribution in memory of Florence Jones. The T hom as M.

Kirby M em orial Fund was created by a $2,000 bequest under the will of the late Anne C. Kirby in memory of her brother. A contribution to The G race E. M eyette Fund was received from Miss Margaret Willis. A gift was received from R ay E. Munn and the Albert M. Higley Foundation made a contribution of $100 in memory of John P. Murphy. The Warner Seely Fund with income designated for

ithe Cleveland Health Museum was created with a $35,000 gift from a trust established by the late Warner Seely A gift of $500 in honor of Frances VJ. and John Sherw in was received from Mrs. Edwin R. M otch.The Kelvin and Eleanor Smith Foundation made an additional gift of $2 ,0 0 0 to the S ocial W ork Scholarsh ip Fund and contributions totaling $90 for the Jessie C. Tucker M em orial Fund were received from the following persons: Dr. Rodolfo Cardona, Miss Ann Gorog, Stefan Leweny and Mrs. Louise T. Sutton. A gift to the M arjorie A. W inbigler M em orial Fund was received from Miss Dorothy H. Fleak.

An addition of $7,293 to the H erbert E. and Eleanor M. Z dara M em orial Fund was made under the will of the late Eleanor M. Zdara, and an additional gift of $1 ,0 0 0 was made to the R hoda L. A ffe ld er Fund by Mr. and Mrs. Lewis J. Affelder.

37

Summary of Income Cash Receipts and Disbursements by Purpose

The Cleveland Foundation Year ended December 31,1969

( S u m m a r i z e d f r o m R e p o r t o f E x a m i n a t i o n b y E r n s t & E r n s t , C e r t i f i e d P u b l i c A c c o u n t a n t s , fu ll r e p o r t b e i n g a v a i l a b l e f o r i n s p e c t io n . )

Balances —January 1,1969

Cash ReceiptsBy trustee banks — principally

dividends and interest By The Cleveland Foundation —

miscellaneous Transfers — from principal — net

6,156,436.787,324,025.74

$1,167,588.96

$5,379,735.14

531.92776,169.72*

Cash DisbursementsAuthorized by trustee banks:

Trustee feesBond premium and real estate

amortization — net

$ 126,579.68

201,343.18 327,922.86

Authorized by The Cleveland Foundation Committee and the Distribution Committee:

For charitable and educational purposes:

Education 948,379.44Cultural affairs 549,411.44Health and Welfare 2,490,449.78Civic affairs 944,543.57Special philanthropic

services 152,441.50Greater Cleveland

Association Foundation 659,549.675,744,775.40

Amount paid to Greater Cleveland Associated Foundation foradministrative expenses 92,126.44 5,836,901.84 6,164,824.70

Balances —December 31,1969 $1,159,201.04 ^‘ Inclu des $ 7 8 0 ,7 4 8 .5 3 from p rin cip al and $ 4 ,5 7 8 .8 1 to principal.

‘ ‘ C om posed of fund balan ces o f $ 1 ,1 5 9 ,2 0 1 .0 4 w hich together w ith futu re in com e, is en cum bered in the to ta l am ou n t o f $ 2 ,5 2 8 ,2 1 8 .4 1 due to grants m ade p rio r to D ecem ber 3 1 ,1 9 6 9 , and subsequ en tly payable .

lrust Fund Assets

Endowment of the Foundation with principal value of the funds held by the Trustee Banks at book or carrying value as of December 31, 1969.

The Aloy Memorial Scholarship Fund $

Anisfield-Wolf Fund Charles Rieley Armington Fund Walter C. and Lucy I. Astrup Fund Sophie Auerbach Fund

14,93299,42716,100

135,812170,403*

The Frederic M. and Nettie E.Backus Memorial Fund 2,330,784

Walter C. and Fannie White Baker Fund 9,938

Lilian Hanna Baldwin Fund 8,037Cornelia W. Beardslee Fund 101,856James C. Beardslee Fund 873,455Mary Berryman Fund 15,716Ida Beznoska Fund 124,963The Dr. Hamilton Fisk Biggar Fund 93,774George Davis Bivin Fund 192,595*Katherine Bohm Fund 7,356Roberta Holden Bole Fund 173,472The George H. Boyd Fund 2,292,825*Alva Bradley II Fund 679,237Gertrude H. Britton,

Katharine H. Perkins Fund 24,461Fannie Brown Memorial Fund 137,665George F. Buehler Memorial Fund 149,047Thomas Burnham Memorial Fund 148,766Katherine Ward Burrell Fund 6,896

The Martha B. Carlisle Memorial Fund 66,329

The Central High School Endowment Fund 5,071

The Fred H. Chapin Memorial Fund 2,955,079

The Frank J. and Nellie L. Chappie Fund 432,124’George W. Chisholm FundJ. E. G. Clark TrustThe Elsa Claus Memorial Fund No. 2Cleveland Recreational Arts FundCaroline E. Coit FundA. E. Convers FundHarry Coulby Fund No. 2Harry Coulby Fund No. 4Jacob D. Cox FundS. Houghton Cox Fund

Henry G. Dalton Fund Alice McHardy Dye Fund

Dr. Frank Carl Felix and Flora Webster Felix Fund

First Cleveland Cavalry —Norton Memorial Fund

William C. Fischer andLillyeT. Fischer Memorial Fund

Fisher FundErwin L. Fisher and Fanny M.

Fisher Memorial Fund Edward C. Flanigon Fund Constance C. Frackelton Fund No. 1

Constance C. Frackelton Fund No. 6

Constance C. Frackelton Fund No. 7 Constance C. Frackelton Fund No. 8

The Fannie Pitcairn Frackelton and David W. Frackelton Fund

Robert J. Frackelton Fund The George Freeman Charity Fund

Frederic H. Gates Fund The William F. and

Anna Lawrence Gibbons Fund William A. Giffhorn Fund

198,3616.458

20,321178,553

67,0486,423,026*

965,557*6,596,265

111,58373,072*

668,454407,498

323,375

89,132

96,381110,390

479,84447,894

206,721228,590

98,94029,653

19,97820,24848,588

283,207

497,326*2.458

Frederick Harris Goff Fund Marie Louise Gollan Fund Julius E. Goodman Fund The George C. and

Marion S. Gordon Fund Robert B. Grandin Fund

The Eugene S. and Blanche R.Halle Memorial Fund

Edwin T. and Mary E. Hamilton Fund

The Lynn J. and Eva D. Hammond Memorial Fund

Leonard C. Hanna, Jr. Associated Foundation Trust

Leonard C. Hanna, Jr. Cleveland Foundation Special Purpose Fund

Leonard C. Hanna, Jr. Fund for Community Chest

Leonard C. Hanna, Jr.Community Development Fund

Leonard C. Hanna, Jr. Fund for United Appeal

Perry G. Harrison and Virginia C.Harrison Memorial Fund

The Kate Hanna Harvey Memorial Fund

Melville H. Haskell, Mary H. Hunter, Gertrude H. Britton,

Katherine H. Perkins Trust George Halle Hays Fund Kaufman Hays Memorial Fund The Hiram House Fund The Jacob Hirtenstein Fund The H. Morley Hitchcock Fund Mildred E. Hommel and Arthur G.

Hommel Memorial Fund

49,712 Centureena S. Hotchkiss Fund 82,84947,908 The A.W . Hurlbut Fund 23,598

559,194Sherman Johnson Memorial Fund 158,930

3,812,636 Caroline Bonnell Jones Fund 4,477

435,338 James S. Jordan Fund 15,822Adrian D. Joyce FundThe Frederick W. and Henryett

64,111

1,563,719 Slocum Judd Fund 570,993

1,178,191 Isaac Theodore Kahn Fund Tillie A. Kaley and Warren R.

839,398

1,574,791* Kaley Memorial Fund 400,146Karamu House Trust 1,176,489

1,548,770 Clarence A. KirkhamMemorial Fund 204,013

1,114,506 John R. Kistner FundThe Otto and Lena Konigslow

24,043

302,697 Memorial Fund 1,858,219*Elroy J. and Fynette H. Kulas Fund 604,851

6,014,082 Robert M. Linney Fund 179,561*

248,179

r/on TOO

Ella L. Lowman Fund 1 ,012

Henry M. Lucas Fund Clemens W. Lundoff and

79,888

789,383 Hilda T. Lundoff Fund 321,955

53,084Frank J. Lynch Fund 25,791*Nellie Lynch Fund 142,682

Theresa Mae MacNab Fund 79,845120,951 Alice Keith Mather Fund 125,107

9,831 The Lewis A. and Ellen E. McCreary9,172 Memorial Fund 12,1579,006 The George W. and Sarah5,771 McGuire Fund 34,885

99,457 The Katherine B. M cKitterick Fund The Thomas and Mary McMyler

98,832

207,013 Memorial Fund 88,059

The Albert Younglove Meriam andKathryn A. Meriam Fund 21,522

Alice Butts Metcalf Fund 5,000Anna B. Minzer Fund 13,716Cornelia S. Moore Fund 68,028*William Curtis Morton, Maud

Morton, Kathleen M orton Fund 961,985E. Freeman Mould Fund 107,462Jane C. Mould Fund 652,284

The Crispin and Kate Oglebay Trust 2,190,106 Mary King Osborn Fund 4,921

William P. Palmer Fund 26,101The Dr. Charles B. Parker

Memorial Fund 344,748 *Douglas Perkins Fund 117,319Grace M. Pew Fund 185,966Walter D. Price Fund 17,090 *William H. Price Fund 31,628The J. Ambrose and Jessie Wheeler

Purcell Memorial Fund 4,727,167

Clay L. and Florence Rannells Reely Fund 104,758

The Retreat Memorial Fund 106,407Charles L. Richman Fund 108,232Nathan G. Richman Fund 93,518Alice M. Rockefeller Fund 218,790Charles F. Ruby Fund 157,845

The Mary Coit Sanford MemorialFund 4,004

Mary Coit Sanford Fund 39,360Dr. Henry A. and Mary J.

Schlink Memorial Fund 58,043William C. Scofield Memorial

Fund 189,026

Frank S. Sheets and Alberta G.Sheets Memorial Fund 19,893

Frank E. Shepardson Fund 45,718The A. H. and Julia W. Shunk Fund 107,371The Thomas and Anna Sidlo Fund 300,810The Nellie B. Snavely Fund 567,449A. L. Somers Fund 181,242William J. Southworth Fund 450,311*Dr. George P. Soyer Fund 14,729Marion R. Spellman Fund 10,618Josephine L. Sperry Fund 2,371Avery L. Sterner Fund 74,900Ada Gates Stevens Memorial Fund 26,813Catherine E. Stewart, Martha A.

Stewart, Judith H. Stewart and Jeannette Stewart Memorial

Fund 12,009Charles L. and Marion H. Stone

Fund 283,669Harriet B. Storrs Fund 749,042Leonard F. Stowe Fund 412,703

Henrietta Teufel Memorial Fund 692,210Amos Burt and Jeanne L.

Thompson Fund 51,742Mabelle G. and Finton L.

Torrence Fund 91,153

Charles F. Uhl Fund 1,108

John F. and Mary G. WahlMemorial Fund 405,786

Jessie MacDonald Walker MemorialFund 42,410

Mabel Breckenridge Wason Fund 620,789*George B. and Edith S. Wheeler

Trust 393,152

Edward Loder Whittemore Fund Henry E. and Ethel L. Widdell Fund James D. Williamson Fund The George H., Charles E., and

25,68440,513

5,186

Samuel Denny Wilson MemorialFund

Edith Anisfield Wolf Fund David C. Wright Memorial Fund Edith Wright Memorial Fund Cleveland Foundation Combined

178,9514,754,845*

233,190263,926

Fund

Total all Trusteed Funds $80,818,076

2,666,602

Non-Trusteed FundsThe following funds are held in a special account, the donors expressing their desire that the gifts be used for certain health or educational purposes.

Cleveland Employees Relations Council Fund M ary and Wallace Duncan Foundation The Health and Welfare Drive, Inc. of

Valley View Reed Bricker FundShaker Heights Children's Theatre Fund Donald A. and Jane C. Stark Scholarship Fund Mr. K. L. Seelbach Fund Walton Hills Combined Charities Drive gift

*These trusts provide, each in varying amounts, for payment of annuities to certain individuals prior to payment of the balance of the income to the Foundation. In 1969 The Cleveland Foundation received 84.1% of the aggregate income of the several funds. Ultimately, it will receive the entire net income.

The Cleveland Foundation Combined Fund

Memorial Funds and Other GiftsMore than 1800 donors have contributed to the Combined Fund which is made up of the following memorials and other gifts:

Morris Abrams Fund Academy of Medicine Health Education

Foundation Fund Rhoda L. Affelder Fund Wickham H. Aldrich Fund Eunice Westfall Allen Memorial Samuel Westfall Allen Memorial Lydia May Ames Fund Katherine B. Arundel Fund Leonard P. Ayres Memorial

A. D. Baldwin Memorial Fund Robert K. Beck Memorial Beulah Holden Bluim Memorial Arthur Blythin Memorial Robert Blythin Memorial Helen R. Bowler Fund Nap. H. Boynton Memorial Fund Alva Bradley Memorial Brigham Britton Fund Charles F. Buescher Memorial Thomas Burnham Memorial Elizabeth A. Burton Memorial Robert H. Busch Scholarship Fund

Carmela Cafarelli Fund Edna L. and Gustav W. Carlson Foundation

Memorial Fund Leyton E. Carter Memorial Fund George S. Case Fund Isabel D. Chamberlin Fund Fred H. Chapin Memorial

Adele Corning Chisholm Memorial Mr. and Mrs. Harold T. Clark Fund Inez and Harry Clement Award Fund Cleveland Center on Alcoholism Fund Cleveland Conference for Educational

Cooperation Fund Cleveland Guidance Center Endowment Fund Cleveland Heights High School

Scholarship Fund Cleveland Psychoanalytic Society Fund Cleveland Sorosis Fund Cleveland War Memorial Arthur Cobb Memorial Arthur Cobb, Jr. Memorial Florence Haney Cobb Memorial Louise B. Cobb Memorial Mary Gaylord Cobb Memorial Percy Wells Cobb Memorial Ralph W. Cobb, Jr. Memorial Dr. Harold N. Cole Memorial Judge Alva R. Corlett Memorial Mary B. Couch Fund Jacob D. Cox, Jr. Memorial Dr. Wilbur S. Crowell Memorial Marianne North Cummer Memorial Glenn A. Cutler Memorial

Nathan L. Dauby Memorial Carl Dittmar Memorial Magdalene Pahler Donahey Fund Anna J. Dorman and Pliny O. Dorman

Memorial Fund James J. Doyle and Lillian Herron Doyle

Scholarship Fund Robert J. Drake Memorial

Kristian Eilertsen Fund

Arthur Feher FundWilliam S. and Freda M. Fell Memorial FundHerold and Clara Fellinger Charitable FundSidney B. Fink MemorialFrances B. and George W. Ford MemorialHarriet R. Fowler FundKatyruth Strieker Fraley MemorialAnnie A. France FundMrs. Hermine Frankel MemorialI. F. Freiberger FundMrs. I. F. Freiberger Memorial FundWinifred Fryer Memorial Fund

Mrs. Florence I. Garrett Memorial Dr. Frank S. Gibson Memorial Fund Ellen Gardner Gilmore Memorial Frances Southworth Goff Memorial Robert B. Grandin Memorial James L. Greene Memorial Bell Greve Memorial Fund Robert Hays Gries Memorial Isador Grossman Memorial Fund

Jessie Haig Memorial Florence Hamilton Memorial Leonard C. Hanna Jr., Cleveland

Play House Fund Leonard C. Hanna Jr., Special Fund Mrs. Ward Harrison MemorialF. H. Haserot Fund Homer H. Hatch Fund James W. Havighurst Memorial

Scholarship Fund Lewis Howard Hayden and Lulu May Hayden

Fund Iva L. Herl FundThe Siegmund and Bertha B. Herzog

Endowment Fund Highland View Hospital Employees' Gift Fund Reuben W. Hitchcock Fund Mary Louise Hobson Memorial Fund Cora Millet Holden Memorial Guerdon S. Holden Memorial Dr. John W. Holloway Memorial Fund A. R. Horr Fund

Joseph C. Hostetler Memorial

The Norma W itt Jackson Fund James K. Johnson, Jr. Memorial Fund Minerva B. Johnson Memorial Fund Florence Jones Memorial Fund Mr. and Mrs. Sidney D. Josephs Fund

Jospeh E. Kewley Memorial Fund Quay H. Kinzig Memorial Thomas M. Kirby Memorial Dr. Emmanuel Klaus Memorial Fund The Philip E. and Bertha Hawley Knowlton

FundEstelle C. Koch Memorial Scholarship FundRichard H. Kohn FundSamuel E. Kramer Law Scholarship Fund

George H. Lapham FundMr. and Mrs. Robert S. Latham FundDr. and Mrs. Robert H. Lechner FundMargaret Irene Leslie FundMeta M. Long Fund

The William Fred M ackay and Cora Carlisle M ackay Memorial Fund

George A. and Mary E. Marten Fund Mrs. E. O. Marting Memorial The Frederick R. and Bertha Specht Mautz

Scholarship Fund Malcolm L. McBride and John Harris

McBride II Memorial Thomas McCauslen Memorial Mrs. E. P. McCullugh Memorial Emma E. McDonald Fund Anna Curtiss McNutt Memorial Charles E. Meink Memorial William J. Mericka Memorial The Grace E. Meyette Fund Emma B. Minch FundJohn A. Mitchell and Blanche G. Mitchell FundHarry F. Miter MemorialHelen Moore FundDaniel E. Morgan Memorial FundRay E. Munn FundJohn P. Murphy Memorial Fund

Christopher Bruce Narten Memorial Fund The National City Bank Fund Harlan H. Newell Memorial

John F. Oberlin and John C. Oberlin Fund Ethelwyne Walton Osborn Memorial

Erla Schlather Parker Fund Caroline Brown Prescott Memorial Mary Dunham Prescott Memorial The George John Putz and Margaret Putz

Memorial Fund

The George F. Quinn Memorial Scholarship Fund

Omar S. Ranney Memorial Grace P. Rawson Fund

! Marie Richardson Memorial Fund Minerva P. Ridley Fund Gertrude M. Robertson Memorial Elizabeth Becker Rorabeck Fund Edward L. Rosenfeld and Bertha M. Rosenfeld

FundDr. A.T. Roskos Fund

Mrs. Raymond T. Sawyer Memorial Oliver H. Schaaf Fund The Robert N. Schwartz Fund for Retarded

Children Warner Seely Fund Arthur H. Seibig Fund Mrs. Louis B. Seltzer Memorial Annette S. Shagren Memorial Nina Sherrer Fund Frances W. and John Sherwin Fund Dr. Thomas Shupe Memorial Fund David G. Skall Memorial Mr. and Mrs. Paul T. Skove Fund Josephine R. and Edward W. Sloan, Jr. Fund Social Work Scholarship Fund Society for Crippled Children —Tris Speaker

Memorial Fund

Society National Bank Fund Meade A. Spencer Memorial

Belle Bierce Stair Memorial The Miriam Kerruish Stage Fund Frederick S. Stamberger Memorial Nellie Steele Stewart Memorial Ralph P. Stoddard Memorial Fund Joseph T. Sweeny Memorial

Charles Farrand Taplin and Elsie H.Taplin FundC. F.Taplin FundJessie Loyd Tarr MemorialElizabeth Bebout Taylor MemorialMary J.Tewksbury FundAllison John Thompson MemorialSarah R. Thompson FundMaud Kerruish Towson MemorialJessie C.Tucker Memorial Fund

Leo W. Ulmer Fund

Cornelia Blakemore Warner Memorial Stanley H. Watson Memorial Frank Walter Weide Fund Caroline Briggs Welch Memorial S. Burns and Simonne H. Weston Fund Lucius J. and Jennie C. Wheeler Fund Elliott H. Whitlock Memorial Mary C. Whitney Fund R. N. and H. R. Wiesenberger Fund Lewis B. Williams Memorial M arjorie A. Winbigler Memorial John W. Woodburn Memorial Nelle P. Woodworth Fund Leward C. Wykoff Memorial

Dr. Edward A. Yurick Fund

Herbert E. and Eleanor M. Zdara Memorial Fund

46

mmhk

The Cleveland Foundation Grants 1969

47

All GrantPayments Unpaid

Grants in 1969 GrantsApproved (Including Prior December

EducationIn 1969 Year Commitments) 31,1969

HigherBALDWIN-WALLACE COLLEGECapital Support-Art & Drama Center $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00 $ - 0 -Operating Support* 16,729.68 16,729.68 - 0 -For Preparation of Teachers In Humanities 16,441.00 - 0 -CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITYOperating Support of W.R.U? 4,683.88 4,683.88 - 0 -Professors' Salary Supplement 8,241.00 4,120.00Adelbert College* 3,279.22 3,279.22 - 0 -Astronomy Department Operating Support 18,750.00 6,250.00 12,500.00Franklin Thomas Backus Law School* 2,952.26 2,952.26 - 0 -Graduate School* 86,112.26 86,112.26 - 0 -Law School Building Fund 90,000.00 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 .0 0Library School for Reference Books* 60.87 60.87 - 0 -

Department of Otolaryngology 15,000.00 45,000.00CLEVELAND STATE UNIVERSITYFestival of Comic Arts in America 498.18 498.18 - 0 -Bachelor of Engineering Technologies Program 15,000.00 15,000.00 - 0 -KENYON COLLEGE, GAMBIER, OHIOGeneral Support* 4,683.88 4,683.88 - 0 -LAKE ERIE COLLEGE, PAINESVILLE, OHIOOperating Support* 305.78 305.78 - 0 -Special Lecture Series 1,500.00 1,500.00 - 0 -LAKELAND COMMUNITY COLLEGECapital Support 75,000.00 25,000.00 50,000.00MORLEY LIBRARY, PAINESVILLE, OHIOBooks for junior college courses 1 ,0 0 0 .0 0 1 ,0 0 0 .0 0 - 0 -UNITED NEGRO COLLEGE FUND, INC.General Support 1 ,0 0 0 .0 0 1 ,0 0 0 .0 0 - 0 -URSULINE COLLEGECapital Support 5,000.00 - 0 - 5,000.00

$286,556.01 $348,738.01 $216,620.00

'Recipients or program s designated by don ors

Elementary and SecondaryCLEVELAND BOARD OF EDUCATION Curriculum Review Study Family Life Education Program CUYAHOGA COUNTY SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENTS ASSOCIATION Executive Office to Coordinate Activities HAWKEN SCHOOL Operating Support*DANIEL MORGAN SCHOOL Books Award to Children*THE PACE ASSOCIATION Operating Purposes

ScholarshipsBALDWIN-WALLACE COLLEGE Scholarships — UndergraduateCAPITAL UNIVERSITY COLUMBUS, OHIOScholarships — Undergraduate*CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY Scholarships*Flora Stone Mather*Oglebay Fellowship Program*Scholarships — Undergraduate Medical School*Scholarship in Aerospace or Computers* Backus Law School*School of Architecture*CHILDREN'S THEATER OF SHAKER HEIGHTS DRAMA AWARD A. A. Beduhn Award*CLEVELAND SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM, INCORPORATED For Inner-City Youth CLEVELAND STATE UNIVERSITY Scholarships — Undergraduate COLLEGE SCHOLARSHIP FOR CITY OF CLEVELAND STUDENT Inez and Harry Clement Award*HARRY COULBY SCHOLARSHIP TRUST New Scholarships and Renewals*COUNCIL AND LEAGUE FOR NURSING Scholarships

Payments UnpaidGrants in 1969 Grants

Approved (Including Prior DecemberIn 1969 Year Commitments) 31,1969

$ 23,000.00 $ 14,900.00 $ 8,100.00137,000.00 40,500.00 96,500.00

12,000.00 - 0-

326.96 326.96 - 0 -

106.76 106.76 - 0 -

25,000.00 - 0 -$160,433.72 $ 92,833.72 $104,600.00

$ 7,500.00 $ 7,500.00 $ - 0 -

944.85 944.85 - 0 -

15,195.76 15,195.76 - 0 -783.13 783.13 - 0 -

47,505.52 47,505.52 - 0 -16,000.00 16,000.00 - 0 -6,676.70 6,676.70 - 0 -

81.46 81.46 - 0 -3,009.18 3,009.18 - 0 -

500.00 500.00 - 0 -

50.00 50.00 - 0 -

3.200.00 —0 — 3,200.00

5,000.00 5,000.00 - 0 -

500.00 500.00 - 0 -

18,568.50 18,568.50 - 0 -

3.200.00 3,200.00 - 0 -^Recipients or program s designated by donors

Payments UnpaidGrants in 1969 Grants

Approved (Including Prior DecemberIn 1969 Year Commitments) 31,1969

CUYAHOGA COMMUNITY COLLEGE Scholarships — Full-time students 5,000.00 5,000.00 - 0 -Scholarships —Part-time students 5,743.75 5,743.75 - 0 -ELYRIA HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS Ada Gates Stevens College Scholarships* 1,900.00 1,850.00 950.00JOHN CARROLL UNIVERSITY Scholarships — Undergraduate 14,309.24 14,309.24 - 0 -LAKE COUNTY AND GEAUGA COUNTY STUDENTS Sherman Johnson Memorial Fund Medical Scholarship Awards* 4,800.00 2 ,1 0 0 .0 0 3,000.00LAKE ERIE COLLEGE, PAINESVILLE, OHIO Harriet B. Storrs and Lake Erie College Scholarships 13,000.00 13,000.00 - 0 -SHARON, PENNSYLVANIA STUDENTS George H. Boyd Scholarships 14,765.00 13,870.00 6,070.00MIRIAM KERRUISH STAGE FUNDShaker Heights High School Student Scholarships* 2,500.00 2,500.00 - 0 -DONALD A. AND JANE C. STARK FUND Scholarships* 14,000.00 13,000.00 7,000.00URSULINE COLLEGE Scholarship* 809.24 809.24 - 0 -URSULINE-SACRED HEART ACADEMY Scholarship Program 13,125.00 13,125.00 - 0 -WELFARE FEDERATIONFor scholarships awarded by careers in social work and The Central Personnel Services Division* 5,000.00 1,500.00 3,500.00

Special ProgramsANISFIELD-WOLF AWARD COMMITTEE, PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY Awards for creative and technical writing in racial relations*

$223,667.33 $212,322.33 $ 23,720.00

$ 4,000.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 4,000.00ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE OF B’NAI B’RITH Operating Support 5,000.00 - 0 - 5,000.00CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY Biology Field Station at Valleevue Farm* 15,835.17 15,835.17 - 0 -Educational Leadership Development 9,860.00 9,860.00 - 0 -Experimental Pre-Health Science Course 8,278.00 8,278.00 - 0 -Science Grants 36,500.00 - 0 -School of Medicine William McLean Wallace Symposium on Pediatrics 1 ,0 0 0 .0 0 1 ,0 0 0 .0 0 - 0 -

CENTRAL SCHOOL OF PRACTICAL NURSING, INC.Visual teaching aids and other equipment 3,775.00 3,775.00 - 0 -*Recipients o r program s designated by d o n ors

50

CLEVELAND BOARD OF EDUCATION Equipment for the educable mentally retarded CLEVELAND PUBLIC LIBRARY Services to shut-ins*

CLEVELAND STATE UNIVERSITY "Voices of the Black Generation”EDUCATION TELEVISION ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN CLEVELAND Capital SupportNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE Afro-American History Cultural School Program NATURAL SCIENCE MUSEUM Capital Support PROJECT WORK"Reading is Fun-Damental” Program SUPPLEMENTARY EDUCATIONAL CENTER-CLEVELAND PUBLIC SCHOOLS Edith Anisfield Wolf Community Service Award URBAN LEAGUE OF CLEVELAND Educational Street Academy Program

Cultural AffairsAMERICAN-ISRAEL CULTURAL FOUNDATION, INC.Capital Support

BLOSSOM MUSIC CENTER Building ProgramCLEVELAND BOARD OF EDUCATION Educational Music Program for gifted high school students CLEVELAND CHAMBER MUSIC SOCIETY Special concerts for inner city school classes CLEVELAND INSTITUTE OF ART Scholarships*CLEVELAND INSTITUTE OF MUSIC Operating Support CLEVELAND MUSEUM OF ART Operating Support*CLEVELAND MUSIC SCHOOL SETTLEMENT Program Support

*R ecip ien ts o r program s designated by don ors

Grants Approved

In 1969

200.00

47,137.21

29,400.00

60,000.00

41.000.00

75.000.00

25.000.00

5,000.00

90.000.00 $420,485.38

$ 2,500.00

10,000.00

8,500.00

868.23

95.000.00

9,459.47

10.000.00

All Grant Payments

in 1969 (Including Prior

Year Commitments)

200.00

47,137.21

29.400.00

60,000.00

41.000.00

25.000.00

12.500.00

- 0 -

- 0 -

$294,485.38

2,500.00

40.000.00

10.000.00

- 0 -

868.23

95.000.00

9,459.47

10.000.00

Unpaid Grants

December 31,1969

- 0-

- 0 -

- 0 -

- 0 -

- 0-

50.000.00

12,500.00

5,000.00

90.000.00 $166,500.00

80,000.00

- 0-

8,500.00

- 0-

- 0 -

- 0-

- 0 -

CLEVELAND PHILHARMONIC ORCHESTRA Operating Support CLEVELAND PLAY HOUSEShakespearian production for students and teachers* Support of new dramatic works*Operating Support*CLEVELAND ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY Operating Support*COLLINWOOD COMMUNITY SERVICES CENTER Community Arts Council Programs

FINE ARTS ASSOCIATION,WILLOUGHBY OHIOCapital Support

GARDEN CENTER OF GREATER CLEVELAND Support of the library*GREAT LAKES SHAKESPEARE ASSOCIATION, INC.Operating Support

HOLDEN ARBORETUM Capital Improvements

KARAMU HOUSE Operating Support*Urban Neighborhood Arts Program LA MESA ESPANOLA Memorial lecture speaker MUSICAL ARTS ASSOCIATION Support of children's concerts*Operating Support*Operating Support of The Cleveland Orchestra NATURAL SCIENCE MUSEUM The Planetarium Program*General Operating Support*OGLEBAY INSTITUTE,WHEELING, WEST VIRGINIA Operating Support of Educational and Recreational Program*

SOUTHERN VERMONT ARTISTS, INC. MANCHESTER, VERMONT Operating SupportUNIVERSITY CIRCLE DEVELOPMENTFOUNDATIONContinuing Program Support

*Recipients or program s designated by d o n ors

Grants Approved

In 1969

5,000.00

1.500.00 875.95

1,281.56

1.500.00

26,100.00

15,000.00

750.00

58,620.10105,000.00

156.84

3,000.0019,406.8350,000.00

1,500.0040,487.66

64,216.65

1,000.00

All Grant Payments

in 1969 (Including Prior

Year Commitments)

5.000.00

1.500.00 875.95

1,281.56

1.500.00

- 0 -

15.000.00

750.00

10.000.00

25.000.00

58,620.1052,500.00

156.84

3.000.00 19,406.83

- 0 -

1.500.00 40,487.66

64,216.65

1.000.00

75.000.00

Unpaid Grants

December 31,1969

- 0 -

51

- o -

- 0 -

- 0 -

26,100.00

- 0 -

- 0 -

- 0 -

- 0 -

52,500.00

- 0 -

- 0 -

- 0 -

50,000.00

- 0 -

- 0 -

- 0-

150,000.00

UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS OF CLEVELAND Lakeside Hospital Operating Support*Maternity Hospital Operating Support*Rainbow Hospital Operating Support*Conference Travel*Vascular or Urological Research*UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER Building FundVOCATIONAL GUIDANCE AND REHABILITATION SERVICES Purchase of Orthopedic Appliances

Children and YouthAMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION NORTHEAST OHIO CHAPTER, INC.Disease detection program for Cleveland schoolsBEECHBROOKOperating Support*TV equipment for psychiatric group therapy BELLEFAIRETo provide special psychiatric consultants Group therapy program for disturbed children BOYS’ CLUB OF CLEVELAND Operating Support*

CAMP CRESTPlanning grant for year-round camp for needy children CAMP FIRE GIRLS, CLEVELAND COUNCIL Geological survey and water system repair CATHOLIC CHARITIES CORPORATION Summer camp for mentally retarded children CEDAR DROP-IN CENTER Program expansion CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY Operating Support*Purchase of tractor CHILDREN’S SERVICES Operating Support*Educational opportunities

CLEVELAND CENTER FOR RESEARCH IN CHILD DEVELOPMENT Training of Child Therapists

All GrantPayments Unpaid

Grants in 1969 GrantsApproved (Including Prior December

In 1969 Year Commitments) 31,1969

286,636.64 286,636.64 - 0 -3,629.44 3,629.44 - 0 -

783.11 783.11 - 0 -1,115.30 1,115.30 - 0 -

32,997.38 32,997.38 - 0 -

— 0 — 40,000.00

1 2 0 .0 0 1 2 0 .0 0 - o -$597,719.57 $776,063.25 $654,300.00

$ 28,742.00 $ 28,742.00 $ - 0 -

24,834.35 24,834.35 - 0 -6.535.00 6,535.00 - 0 -

5.000.00 5,000.00 - 0 -11,060.00 3,800.00

326.96 326.96 - 0 -

15,000.00 15,000.00 - 0 -

18.765.00 18,765.00 - 0 -

7.000.00 7,000.00 - 0 -

19.197.00 19,197.00 - 0 -

160.25 160.25 - 0 -1.915.00 1,915.00 - 0 -

129.32 129.32 - 0 -231.96 231.96 - 0 -

10,000.00 10,000.00

*R ecip ien ts or program s designated by don ors

CLEVELAND GUIDANCE CENTER Operating Support*Special treatment for emotionally disturbed children CLEVELAND POLICE DEPARTMENT To Juvenile Bureau for prevention of delinquency* COMMUNITY SERVICES CENTER OF MT. PLEASANT AND THE BEECH BROOK CHILDREN'S HOMEPlanning and development of Southeast Cleveland Community Mental Health Center

COUNCIL FOR ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES Hough Youth Council recreation program Bell Center Day CampHough Youth Council Employment Program —Operation Progress for YouthKinsman Area Summer Day CampNear-West-Side-Tremont Area Day CampPride Project—Youth EmploymentSt. Clair Businessmen's AssociationEmployment ProgramWest Central Area Employment ProgramCUYAHOGA COUNTY ASSOCIATION FOR RETARDEDCHILDREN AND ADULTSOperating SupportCUYAHOGA COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT Give a Christmas Program

DAY NURSERY ASSOCIATION OF CLEVELAND Day care centers Operating Support*Development and implementation of a technical assistance program for day care centers

GREATER CLEVELAND NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS ASSOCIATION

Program developmentGlenville Neighborhood and Community Centers In-Service Training and Work Experience P. R. 76 Recreation Program Spanish-American Committee—Youth Employment ProgramWest Side Community House Employment Program Hough Development Corporation Youth Employment Program at League Park Center Puerto Rican Youth Center Program*R ecip ien ts o r program s designated by donors

All GrantPayments Unpaid

Grants in 1969 GrantsApproved (Including Prior December

In 1969 Year Commitments) 31,1969

122.52 122.52 - 0 -2, 000.00 - 0-

358.23 358.23 - 0 -

17,125.75 16,725.75 400.00

13.500.00 13,500.00 - 0 -

30.658.00 30,658.00 - 0 -13.500.00 13,,500.00 - 0 -

7.000.00 7,000.00 - 0 -40.000.00 40,000.00 - 0 -

20.000.00 20,000-00 - 0 -14.000.00 2,250.00 11,750.00

36,400.00 30,600.00

1,685.00 1,685.00 - 0 -

27,251.52 27,251.52 - 0 -1.000.00 1,000.00 -0-

116,448.48 116,448.48 - 0 -

13.295.00 13,295.00 - 0 -

10,000.00 10,000.00 -0-

8.000.00 8,000.00 - 0-

8,000.00 8,000.00 -0-

24.150.00 24,150.00 - 0 -

7,000.00 7,000.00 - 0 -18.855.00 18,809.55 45.44

West Side Community Home Experimental Program Using Arts to Modify Delinquent BehaviorHIRAM HOUSE Operating Support*JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER Halle Park Facility Development Program JEWISH FAMILY SERVICE ASSOCIATION Pilot Youth Center in Cleveland Heights and University HeightsJONES HOME OF CHILDREN'S SERVICES Operating Support*JUVENILE COURT OF CLEVELANDEstablishment of a suburban branch officeHARRIE LARLHAM FOUNDATION, MANTUA, OHIOHome for Mentally RetardedLEAGUE PARK CENTER, INC.Station wagon for transportation ofHead Start youngstersMUSIC SCHOOL SETTLEMENTAdministration of Summer Arts Festival ProgramPARMADALEOperating Support*POLICE ATHLETIC LEAGUE OF CLEVELAND Program Support ROSE-MARY HOME Operating Support*SOCIETY FOR CRIPPLED CHILDREN Operating Support*THREE-CORNER-ROUND-PACK OUTFIT, INC. Camping Programs for Boys*YOUTH ENRICHMENT SERVICES, INC.Vocational education to educable retarded WARRENSVILLE HEIGHTS BOARD OF EDUCATIONPartial Support of Youth Drop-In Center WELFARE FEDERATION OF CLEVELAND Counselor training program for inner-city youth YOUNG MEN’S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION Outreach workers for the Glenville Area Youth Partners in Action extend services to needy unreached youth in inner-city

Grants Approved

In 1969

All Grant Payments

in 1969 (Including Prior

Year Commitments)

Unpaid Grants

December 31,1969

23,094.00 11,547.00 11,547.00

851.41 851.41 - 0 -

150,000.00 132,000.00 18,000.00

2 0 ,0 0 0 .0 0 1 0 ,0 0 0 .0 0 1 0 ,0 0 0 .0 0

8,009.57 8,009.57 - 0 -

- 0 - 13,450.96

1,076.28 1,076.28 - 0 -

500.00 500.00 - 0 -

6 ,0 0 0 .0 0 6 ,0 0 0 .0 0 - 0 -

338.59 338.59 - 0 -

1 0 ,0 0 0 .0 0 1 0 ,0 0 0 .0 0 - 0 -

458.19 458.19 - 0 -

5,572.47 5,572.47 - 0 -

7,311.50 7,311.50 - 0 —

8,500.00 8,500.00 - 0 -

9,118.00 - 0 - 9,118.00

12,192.40 12,192.40 - 0 -

3,700.00 3,700.00 - 0 -

1 0 0 ,0 0 0 .0 0 74,081.67 25,918.33

$886,508.75 $859,189.97 $144,629.73*Recipients or program s designated by d o n ors

AgedAMASA STONE HOUSE Operating Support*BENJAMIN ROSE INSTITUTE Pensions and Care of Elderly Persons Operating Support*COUNCIL FOR ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES

Project Care —Concerned Action Regarding the Elderly Services to the Aged Project Care — Expanding services to the Aged CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY- SCHOOL OF MEDICINEClinical research program for disabled aged and chronically ill

CLEVELAND METROPOLITAN GENERAL HOSPITALL-Dopa treatment of Parkinson's Disease CLEVELAND SOCIETY FOR THE BLIND Outreach to visually handicappped among the elderly ELIZA BRYANT HOME FOR THE AGED Operating Support*EAST END NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSE Special Program GOLDEN AGE CENTER Special NeedsLITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR Operating Support*LUTHERAN HOME FOR THE AGED Operating Support*MENORAH PARK JEWISH HOME FOR AGED Movie equipmentNURSING HOME COMMITTEE OF THE WELFARE FEDERATION Study of nursing home standards OVERLOOK HOUSE Building Program SOUTHWEST SENIOR CENTER Golden Age Center of Parma Heights THE WELFARE FEDERATION Support of the Senior Information and Referral Center

All GrantPayments Unpaid

Grants in 1969 GrantsApproved (Including Prior December

In 1969 Year Commitments) 31,1969

$ 20,398.38 $ 20,398.38 $ - 0 -

53.200.00 - 0 - 53,200.0024,322.30 24,322.30 - 0 -

40.498.00 40,498.00 - 0 -81.666.00 81,666.00 - 0 -

8,064.43 8,064.43 - 0 -

4.000.00 4,000.00 ^ 0 -

16.500.00 16,440.92 59.08

2,307.08 1,318.59 988.49

51,000.00 - 0 - 51,000.00

394.62 394.62 - 0 -

498.84 498.84 - 0 -

9,601.74 9,601.74 - 0 -

1.000.00 1,000.00 — 0 -

11.700.00 11,700.00 - 0 -

50,000.00 - 0 -

5,824.00 - 0 -

15.871.00 15,871.00 - 0 -$341,022.39 $291,598.82 $105,247.57

^R ecipients o r program s designated by don ors

Community Service OrganizationsAMERICAN NATIONAL RED CROSS, WASHINGTON, D.C.General Support*COUNCIL FOR ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES Kinsman Opportunity Center Garment Shop Program EquipmentCLEVELAND PSYCHOANALYTIC SOCIETYFOUNDATIONOperating Support*Training Fellowships and Programs in Child Therapy*CLEVELAND SOCIETY FOR THE BLIND Operating Support*CUYAHOGA COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT Special Needs*FAMILY SERVICE ASSOCIATION General Support*FAIRMOUNT PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH Operating Support*FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH,PAINESVILLE, OHIO Building FundGREATER CLEVELAND NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS ASSOCIATION

G.C.N.C.A.Operating Support*Capital SupportWest Side Community Center for Spanish Speaking PeopleG.C.N.C.A. ALTA HOUSESpecial program in South Collinwood areaG.C.N.C.A. GLENVILLE NEIGHBORHOOD ANDCOMMUNITY CENTERSAn Additional Meeting FacilityG.C.N.C.A. MERRICK HOUSEExpansion of program in near West Side areaG.C.N.C.A. MT. PLEASANT URBANSERVICES CENTERAnisfield-Wolf Community Service Award

GOODWILL INDUSTRIES Capital Support*Capital Support

All GrantPayments Unpaid

Grants in 1969 GrantsApproved (Including Prior December

In 1969 Year Commitments) 31,1969

$ 2,082.83 $ 2,082.83 $ —0 -

600.00 600.00 - 0 -

13.57 13.57 - 0 -41,518.01 41,518.01 - 0 -

27,748.16 27,748.16 - 0 -

160.25 160.25 - 0 -

1,783.11 1,783.11 - 0 -

737.64 737.64 - 0 -

10,000.00 - 0 -

3,923.93 3,923.93 - 0 -50.000.00 - 0 - 50,000.00

2.500.00 1,924.20

6.835.00 - 0 -

3.060.00 - 0 -

3.400.00 2,500.00

5,000.00 - 0 -

20.000.00 20,000.00 - 0 -50,000.00 50,000.00 - 0 -

Recipients or program s designated by don ors

JEWISH COMMUNITY FEDERATION Operations Research Model for Social Agency Planning and Allocations General Support MARGIE HOMECapital Support for Home for Retarded Adults NEIGHBORHOOD COUNSELING SERVICE Program SupportPLANNED PARENTHOOD OF CLEVELAND, INC. General Support*Expansion of Services in the Inner City SALVATION ARMY Operating Support*SHELTERED INDUSTRIES FOR PAINESVILLE BOYS Program SupportSOCIETY OF ST. VINCENT DE PAUL Operating Support*VISITING NURSE ASSOCIATION General Support*VOCATIONAL GUIDANCE AND REHABILITATION SERVICES Operating Support Needy Clients*Development of Rehabilitation Work Center WELFARE FEDERATION

Central Volunteer Bureau General Operating*Cleveland Homemaker Service Association* Committee on Mental Retardation Problems To implement recommendations of the health goals project Reorganization planning Interracial-Intercultural Relations Program Anisfield-Wolf Award Administrative costs of the Community Service Award

YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION, PAINESVILLE, OHIO Operating SupportYOUNG WOMEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION Operating Support*UNITED APPEAL OF GREATER CLEVELAND Contributions from 15 funds for operating support*

*R ecip ien ts o r program s designated by donors

'■mmAll u ra n tPayments Unpaid

Grants in 1969 GrantsApproved (Including Prior December

In 1969 Year Commitments) 31,1969

58.300.00 58,300.00 - 0 -5,000,00 - 0 -

21.900.00 21,900.00 - 0 -

52.770.00 8,770.00 44,000.00

6,664.08 6,664.08 - 0 -78.002.00 1,000.00

6,349.78 6,349.78 - 0 -

300.00 300.00 - 0 -

338.59 338.59 - 0 -

500.00 500.00 - 0 -

458.20 458.20 - 0 -2,000.00 2,000.00 -0-

50.000.00 50,000.00

3,058.12 3,058.12 - 0 -1,801.98 1,801.98 - 0 -2,000.00 2,000.00 - 0-

17.500.00 - 0 -

30.000.00 - 0 -10.000.00 - 0 -

366.24 - 0 -

1.000.00 - 0 - 2,500.00

1.000.00 1,000.00 -0-

694.28 694.28 - 0 -

74,456.96 79,231.97 3,225.00$432,159.49 $563,597.74 $155,149.20

Civic AffairsCitizen InvolvementCLEVELAND COUNCIL ON WORLD AFFAIRS The Far East Institute Program CONSUMER PROTECTION ASSOCIATION Expanded Consumer Education Program ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE ADVISORY COMMITTEE (G.C.A.F. Administered)Police NewsletterHARVARD COMMUNITY SERVICES CENTER Staff ServicesHOUGH HOUSING CORPORATION Goodrich Social Settlement for Community and Social Services URBAN COALITION OF GREATER CLEVELAND Staff SupportUNITED AREA CITIZENS AGENCY Staff to assist citizen participation in neighborhood programs WOMEN’S CITY CLUB Educational lectures*

Employment and Economic DevelopmentAMERICAN JEWISH COMMITTEECLEVELAND CHAPTERExecutive suite action programCLEVELAND DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATIONOperating support and reservefor future expenditures*CLEVELAND JOB CORPS CENTER FOR WOMENTraining workshop for staffCONSUMER CREDIT COUNSELING SERVICEExpansion of staff and serviceGREATER CLEVELAND GROWTH ASSOCIATIONTo Establish Two Cooperative Meat MarketsJobs Executive Committee ProgramHEBREW FREE LOAN ASSOCIATIONTwo awards in memory of John Anisfield andEugene E. Wolf*

All GrantPayments Unpaid

Grants in 1969 GrantsApproved (Including Prior December

In 1969 Year Commitments) 31,1969

$ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 $ - 0 -

125,892.00 113,673.53 12,218.47

11.900.00 - 0 -

25.000.00 - 0 -

6,668.00 - 0-

30.000.00 - 0 -

51.000.00 64,500.00

233.88 233.88 - 0 -$128,625.88 S240,975.41 $ 76,718.47

$ 39,400.00 $ 9,850.00 $ 29,550.00

248,566.87 248,566.87 - 0 -

145.73 - 0 -

16.100.00 - 0 -

35,000.00 35,000.00 - 0 -70,805.00 19,805.00 51,000.00

1,000.00 1,000.00 - 0-

*R ecip ien ts or program s designated by donors

HOUGH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONPartial local support to match federal grant forgeneral development purposesLEGAL AID SOCIETY OF CLEVELANDSupportive Services for Vista personnel and othertechnical and overhead costsWELFARE FEDERATIONSupport of Manpower Planning andDevelopment CommissionWESTSIDE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTCORPORATIONCleveland-American Indian Center-Program Support

HousingFAIR HOUSING COUNCIL Operating SupportMOUNT PLEASANT COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT FOUNDATIONProgram SupportPATH ASSOCIATIONPlan of action for tomorrow's housingOperating SupportCommunity Fighters for Housing Large Families Special study of the relation of zoning and cost to the development of housing in Cuyahoga County URBAN LEAGUE OF CLEVELAND Fair Housing Program Operation Equality— Operating Support

Strengthening the Public ServiceBETTER HOMES FOR CLEVELANDFOUNDATION, INCORPORATEDDemonstration Community Law Enforcement ProgramCLEVELAND PUBLIC LIBRARYProgram to improve basic management proceduresGREATER CLEVELAND ASSOCIATEDFOUNDATIONDemonstration Summons Program in The Police DepartmentMaximum utilization of Federal resources study Operating support of Administration of Justice Advisory Committee

Grants Approved

In 1969

50,000.00

59,118.00

9,000.00$512,889.87

$ 9,700.00

219,000.0040,000.00

12,898.00

86,146.00$367,744.00

$ 65,248.00

55,000.00

16,000.008,000.00

95,074.00$239,322.00

All Grant Payments

in 1969 (Including Prior

Year Commitments)

30,000.00

29,559.00

20,000.00

4,500.00$414,526.60

$ 7,500.00

8,200.00

70.950.0030.000.00

12.898.00

30.000.00 - 0 -

$159,548.00

41,748.00

25,000.00

12,651.558,000.00

42,094.01$129,493.56

Unpaid Grants

December 31,1969

20,000.00

29,559.00

- 0 -

4,500.00$134,609.00

- 0 -

1,500.00

168,050.0010,000.00

- 0 -

- 0 -

86,146.00$265,696.00

$ 23,500.00

30,000.00

3,348.45- 0 -

52,979.99$109,828.44

63

*Recipients or program s designated by don ors

All GrantPayments Unpaid

Grants in 1969 GrantsApproved (Including Prior December

Special Philanthropic ServicesGreater Cleveland Associated Foundation for Administrative PurposesLeonard C. Hanna, Jr. Cleveland Foundation

In 1969 Year Commitments) 31,1969

Special Purpose Fund*Leonard C. Hanna, Jr. Associated Foundation

$ 50,114.89 $ 50,114.89 - 0 -

Trust —Income* 100,019.40 96,519.40 3,500.00Frederick Harris Goff Fund* 3,722.57 3,722.57 - 0 -William P. Palmer Fund 2,084.64 2,084.64 - 0 -

Greater Cleveland Associated Foundation for GrantsLeonard C. Hanna, Jr. Associated Foundation Trust

$155,941.50 $152,441.50 $ 3,500.00

and Ford Foundation from Principal**R ecip ien ts o r program s designated by don ors

$659,549.67 $659,549.67 - 0 -

The Distribution CommitteeJohn Sherwin, Chairm an Raymond Q. Armington Mrs. Royal Firman, Jr.Thomas A. Burke Dr. Kenneth W. Clement Edward H. deConingh Edgar A. HahnH. Stuart Harrison Harvey B. Hobson James D. Ireland Frank E.Joseph George F. Karch Elmer L. Lindseth Thomas F. PattonJames A. Norton, D irector and Secretary

TrusteesCentral National Bank of Cleveland The Cleveland Trust Company The National City Bank of Cleveland Society National Bank of Cleveland Union Commerce Bank

Trustees CommitteeGeorge F. Karch, C hairm an Chairman of Board and Chief Executive Officer The Cleveland Trust Company

Alfred Lamont Jones President and Chief Executive Officer Union Commerce Bank

John S. FangbonerChairman of BoardThe National City Bank of Cleveland

Walter F. Lineberger, Jr.Chairman of Board and Chief Executive Officer Society National Bank of ClevelandEdward L. CarpenterChairman of Board and Chief Executive OfficerCentral National Bank of Cleveland

CounselThompson, Hine and Flory

Office of the Foundation

700 National City Bank Building Cleveland, Ohio 44114 Telephone: 216/861-3810

Greater Cleveland Associated Foundation

Annual Report for 1969

Board of TrusteesJohn Sherwin, C hairm anMrs. Royal Firman, Jr., V ice C hairm anHarvey B. Hobson, V ice C hairm anJames D. Ireland, TreasurerRaymond Q. ArmingtonThomas A. BurkeDr. Kenneth W. ClementEdward H. deConinghEdgar A. HahnH. Stuart HarrisonFrank E. JosephGeorge F. KarchElmer L. LindsethThomas F. Patton

Purposes of the Greater Cleveland Associated Foundation• To encourage research on and solution of

community problems

• To establish priorities for community action

• To make grants for research, pilot, experimental and other projects toward the solution of such problems

• To encourage sound use of philanthropic funds

Lrreater Cleveland Associated Foundation

Grants 1969

EducationHigherCASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY Lecturer on Urban Housing EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT CENTER Research on Remedial Program for College Fail-Outs GREATER CLEVELAND ASSOCIATED FOUNDATIONConsultant Study on Financing Higher Education

Elementary and SecondaryCUYAHOGA COUNTY SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENTS ASSOCIATION Staff Services for Cooperative Programs Among the School Districts

Special ProgramsADMINISTRATIVE CONSORTIUM OF HEIDELBERG, HIRAM, OBERLIN AND WOOSTER COLLEGES Cooperative Urban Studies Program GARDEN VALLEY NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSE Special Community Conference GREATER CLEVELAND ASSOCIATED FOUNDATIONManagement Training Program for Negroes

Health and WelfareChildren and YouthBOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA, GREATER CLEVELAND COUNCILFrom the Kulas Foundation for Participation in the Boy Scout Jamboree in Idaho

Grants Approved

In 1969

5.000.005.000.00

1,700.00

$ 1,700.00

All Grant Payments

in 1969 (Including Prior

Year Commitments)

14.000.00

15.000.00

3,644.0032,644.00

$ 10,000.00

$ 10,000.00

25,000.00

1,700.00

14,884.10 $ 41,584.10

Unpaid Grants

December 31,1969

$ 10,500.00

1,356.00 $ 11,856.00

$ - 0 -

$ - 0 -

15,320.00

- 0 -

8,115.90 $ 23,435.90

1,000.00 $ 1,000.00

COUNCIL FOR ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES IN GREATER CLEVELANDAdditional Grant for the Preliminary Funding of PRIDE

Support of Study and Inventory on Youth Related Programs by Committee of Hough Residents Implementation of Recommendations of the Citizens' Advisory Board

Community Service OrganizationsJEWISH COMMUNITY FEDERATION Completion of an Operations Research Model for Social Agency Planning and Allocations DAY NURSERY ASSOCIATION FAMILY SERVICE ASSOCIATION HOMEMAKER SERVICE ASSOCIATION TRAVELERS AID SOCIETY YOUTH SERVICE WELFARE FEDERATIONPlanning and Implementation of Agency Consolidation

Civic AffairsCitizen InvolvementBUSINESSMEN'S INTERRACIAL COMMITTEE ONCOMMUNITY AFFAIRSOperating Support 1968-69Operating Support 1969-70Special Neighborhood Support ProgramsCONSUMER PROTECTION ASSOCIATIONStaff ServicesHOUGH COMMUNITY COUNCILPublication of the Hough Inventory of Services ReportMORELAND COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONCommunity Information and Planning ProgramUNITED AREA CITIZEN AGENCYStaff to Assist Citizen Participation inNeighborhood Programs

Grants Approved

In 1969

Payments in 1969

(Including Prior Year Commitments)

Unpaid Grants

December 31,1969

613.28 - 0 — - 0 -

2,770.53 - 0 -

18,000.00 - 0 -$ 1,613.28 $ 21,770.53 $ - 0 -

$ 58,300.00 - 0 - $ 58,300.003,960.00 3,960.00 - 0 -7,740.00 7,740.00 - 0 -3,600.00 3,600.00 - 0 -

720.00 720.00 - 0 -1,980.00 1,980.00 - 0 -9,000.00 9,000.00 - 0 -

$ 85,300.00 $ 27,000.00 $ 58,300.00

$ 1,543.37 $ 11,993.37 $ —0 —25,800.00 1,161.44 24,638.562 0 ,0 0 0 .0 0 - 0 - 2 0 ,0 0 0 .0 0

5,600.00 5,600.00 - 0 -

1 ,0 0 0 .0 0 1 ,0 0 0 .0 0 - 0 -

7,780.00 - 0 -

49,250.00 66,250.00$ 53,943.37 $ 76,784.81 $110,888.56

All Grant Payments

Grants in 1969Approved (Including Prior

In 1969 Year Commitments)

Employment and Economic DevelopmentDEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES ANDECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTInformation System for Manpower Programs inCleveland $ 38,000.00 $ 18,000.00GREATER CLEVELAND GROWTH ASSOCIATION Job Executive Committee for Coordination ofComprehensive Employment Program 70,805.00 26,325.63OPPORTUNITIES INDUSTRIALIZATION CENTER, INC.Interim Funding of Special ManpowerTraining Program 40,000.00 40,000.00PROJECT WORKCoordination of Employment and Training ProgramsAdministration Costs 7,000.00 7,000.00

$155,805.00 $ 91,325.63

HousingCLEVELAND METROPOLITAN HOUSING AUTHORITYTo Develop a Plan for Increased Security inPublic Housing Projects $ 15,000.00 $ 10,000.00FAIR HOUSING COUNCILTo Assist in Providing Housing for Negroes 7,500.00GREATER CLEVELAND ASSOCIATEDFOUNDATIONConsultant of Developing a Land and PropertiesInventory System — 0 —HOUGH HOUSING CORPORATION Social and Community Services in NewlyRehabilitated Units 13,333.34PATH ASSOCIATIONOperating Support 50,000.00URBAN LEAGUE OF CLEVELANDTo Provide Fair Housing Opportunities for Negroes 30,000.00

Unpaid Grants

December 31,1969

$ 20,000.00

44,479.37

- 0 -

- 0 -

$ 64,479.37

$ 5,000.00

- 0 -

4,794.57

- 0 -

- 0 -

- 0 -

$ 15.000.00 $110,833.34 $ 9,794.57

All GrantPayments Unpaid

Grants in 1969 GrantsApproved (Including Prior December

In 1969 Year Commitments) 31,1969

Strengthening the Public ServiceADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE ADVISORY COMMITTEEStaff Services for Program to Improve the System of Justice in Greater Cleveland BOARD OF CUYAHOGA COUNTY COMMISSIONERSManagement Study to Improve Administration of Welfare DepartmentCASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY Public Management Science Program Study of Urban ViolenceResearch in Separation Problems of Water PollutantsGOVERNMENTAL RESEARCH INSTITUTECommunity Education Program Based on the TaxPolicy Research ReportCompletion of Program to Implement theRecommendations of the Little Hoover CommissionLittle Hoover Commission GovernmentalCommunications ProgramLittle Hoover Commission Continuance of theGovernmental Communications ProgramReview of Current Community Attitudes TowardMetropolitan GovernmentGREATER CLEVELAND ASSOCIATEDFOUNDATIONLeadership Training Program Supported byNational Institute of Public AffairsManagement Training Program for Staff Personnelin the City of ClevelandPolice Cadet Training Program at CuyahogaCommunity College Additional GrantSummer Intern ProgramKENT STATE UNIVERSITY CENTER FOR URBAN REGIONALISMStudent Involvement Program in Constitutional Revision

$ 45,000.00 $ 42,719.07 $ 2,280.93

90.000.00 45,000.00 45,000.00

45,075.00 133,350.0030.000.00 - 0 -30.000.00 - 0 -

10.000.00 - 0 -

15.000.00 15,000.00 - 0 -

25.000.00 25,000.00 —0 -

18.000.00 18,000.00 - 0 -

10,000.00 - 0- 10,000.00

- 0 - 2,466.83

- 0 - 4,371.97

1,367.20 17,555.80 —0—2,053.19 2,053.19 - 0 -

55,000.00 1,000.00 54,000.00$261,420.39 $281,403.06 $251,469.73

72 Balance SheetGreater Cleveland Associated Foundation

December 31,1969

AssetsOperating Fund

CashReceivables:

From contributors to designated programs $ 31,051From The Cleveland Foundation 1 9 5 5 9

Investment income 2 0 9 7 9Payable from special fund ------------Furniture and equipment — at nominal amount Other assets

Special Funds —Note A

Cash 2,153U.S. Government securities — at cost

(approximate market $1,517,000) 1,546,667

$ 43,094

71,58959,869

1

8,736183,289

1,548,820

$1,732,109

Liabilities and Fund BalancesOperating Fund

Accounts payable and accrued expenses Fund balance:

Restricted:To certain grants $ 2,860Contributions for designated programs 101,141

104,001Unrestricted — available for

operating purposes 74,766

Special Fund —Note APayable to operating fund 59,869Fund balance:

Available for future grants:For research and action on

community problems $ 630,354Undesignated 328,373

958,727Unexpended balance of previous grants 530,224 1,488,951

$ 4,522

178,767183,289

1,548,820$1,732,109

Note A — The Foundation is required, under the terms of grants from the Ford Foundation and of a trust agreement with The Leonard C. Hanna, Jr. Fund, to distribute or commit to distribution all special funds and income thereon by December 31,1971.

Statement of Changes in Fund BalancesGreater Cleveland Associated Foundation

Year ended December 31,1969

Operating Fund

Restricted to Certain

Grants

$ 23,348

30,700

Contributions Restricted

to Designated Programs

$ 105,817

400,601

98,482

152,530 506,418

149,670

2,860

$ 2,860

405,277101,141

$ 101,141

Unrestricted

$ 122,845

50,1151,313

111,431

285,704

309,168

23,464*

98,230$ 74,766

SpecialFund

$2,176,891

98,347

318

Balance at January 1,1969Receipts:

Contributions Investment income earned Fee income from The Cleveland

Foundation Amortization of bond premium Receipt of grants administered

through operating fund Net gain on sale of securities

Disbursements:Grants (including grants

administered through operating fund)

Administrative expenses —Note B

Grants administered through operating fund

Contributions received for designated programs

Transfer of investment income from special fund to operating

fund

Balance at December 31,1969i n d ic a t e s red figu re.

N o te B — T h e F o u n d a tio n h as an in su red p en sio n p lan fo r ce rta in em p lo y e es . T h e to ta l p en sio n exp en se fo r th e y e a r w a s $ 3 2 ,4 3 2A ccru e d p en sio n co st is fu nd ed .

4,9702,280,526

693,345

1,587,181

98,230v $1,488,951

Auditor's Report 75

Board of TrusteesGreater Cleveland Associated Foundation Cleveland, Ohio

We have examined the balance sheet of the Greater Cleveland Associated Foundation as of December 31,1969, and the related statement of changes in fund balances for the year then ended. Our examination was made in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, and accordingly included such tests of the accounting records and such other auditing procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.

In our opinion, the accompanying balance sheet and statement of changes in fund balances pre­sent fairly the financial position of the Greater Cleveland Associated Foundation at December 31,1969, and the changes in fund balances for the year then ended, in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles applied on a basis consistent with that of the preceding year.

Ernst & ErnstCleveland, Ohio

March 30,1970

Staff:James A. Norton, P resident and D irector Mrs. Barbara Rawson, A ssistant D irector Bruce L. Newman, A ssistant D irector Jack Agueros, Urban Fellow Thomas Albert, S ta ff A ssociate J. Kimball Johnson, C onsultant Roland H. Johnson, S ta ff A ssociate Robert F. Risberg, Financial M anager Seymour Slavin, Consultant

Foundation Center 700 National City Bank Building Telephone 216/861-3810

Suggested forms for gifts or bequests to The Cleveland Foundation by will or trust agreement

Gift or bequest to be held as separate trust"I give (bequeath) t o ........................................................ (nameof Bank or Trust company) as trustee, to be administered as a separate trust estate for the purposes of The Cleveland Foun­dation in accordance with a written Resolution adopted by the Board of Directors of said trustee on , 19as supplemented by a written Resolution adopted by the Distribution Committee and approved by the Trustees Com­mittee of The Cleveland Foundation on April 14,1967. Said Resolutions are now in existence and are incorporated herein!'

The names of the five banks and the dates on which their respective Boards of Directors adopted the Resolution mentioned first above are as follows:

Central National Bank of Cleveland The Cleveland Trust Company The National City Bank of Cleveland Society National Bank of Cleveland Union Commerce Bank

December 24, 1930 January 5,1931 June 11,1934 January 22, 1960 April 14,1955

Gift or bequest to the Combined FundTo establish a fund or memorial in the Combined Fund, the following language is suggested:"I give (bequeath) t o .............................................................(nameof Bank or Trust company) as trustee, to be added to and administered as a part of the trust estate, known as The Cleve­land Foundation Combined Fund, held by said trustee under its written Declaration of Trust dated , 19

The dates on which the five banks executed the Declaration of Trust mentioned above are as follows:

Central National Bank of Cleveland July 22,1943The Cleveland Trust Company July 6,1943The National City Bank of Cleveland August 9,1943Society National Bank of Cleveland April 15,1960Union Commerce Bank April 18, 1956

GeneralIt is suggested that a person confer with one of the trustee banks as to whether he should make his gift as an addition to the Combined Fund, rather than create a separate trust estate.

If it is desired that the gift bear a name as a memorial, the following language may be used:

“It is my desire that the foregoing gift be known as th e............................................................................ (Fund or Memorial).

Further information and suggestions concerning the language to be employed in specific situations may be obtained by attorneys from the trust departments of any of the five par­ticipating trustee institutions or from the office of The Cleveland Foundation.

Tax Reform Act of 1969Private foundations considering transfer of their assets to The Cleveland Foundation —a public charity under the terms of the Tax Reform Act of 1969 —should contact the Director of The Cleveland Foundation.