Microsoft Word Packard Teaching Case revised docx
Yüklə 480,23 Kb. Pdf görüntüsü
|
- Bu səhifədəki naviqasiya:
- As the Foundation looked to places to cut its grantmaking, the Children, Families, and Communities program took one of the hardest hits.
- A Big, Hairy, Audacious Goal Emerges
- Salisbury and her team’s big, hairy, audacious goal became achieving voluntary, high-‐quality
- With Salisbury and her team’s groundwork and the backing of key Packard leaders, in March 2003
Teaching Case: Evaluation of Preschool for California’s Children
7 A family-‐led foundation that was built on the success of Hewlett-‐Packard, the Foundation’s assets were largely tied to the company’s stock. In the dot-‐com bust and other shakeups in the early 2000s, the Foundation’s assets tumbled from $13 billion in 2000 to $5.8 billion just one year later. 4
As the Foundation looked to places to cut its grantmaking, the Children, Families, and Communities program took one of the hardest hits. Grants in Salisbury’s program were slashed an average of 76 percent in 2002 (compared to 2001). Salisbury had to find a way to make an impact with a much smaller grantmaking budget than the program had in earlier years.
“The charge I was given was to bring focus and leadership at a time of needed restructuring because of a change in assets,” Salisbury said.
Salisbury is a big believer in focus. From her experience as a litigator and advocate, it makes sense to choose one or two big goals, adopt a long-‐term view and take big risks. “I was inspired by the work of [author] Jim Collins and setting big, hairy, audacious goals,” she said. 5
Salisbury and her team’s big, hairy, audacious goal became achieving voluntary, high-‐quality preschool for all three-‐ and four-‐year-‐olds in California by 2013. If achieved, the goal would benefit more than one million children each year.
Salisbury bet a big percentage of her program’s funds on this one goal. She had consolidated the Children, Families, and Communities program from 12 subprograms to just three. If approved by Packard’s Board of Trustees, more than 50 percent of the Children, Families and Communities’ annual budget would be devoted to preschool grantmaking over the next 10 years.
Salisbury liked the preschool goal because it was compelling, it was backed by strong evidence on the effect of quality preschool on children’s educational future, parents and others instantly grasped the importance of preschool, and she thought it was winnable. Salisbury also liked the specificity of achieving universal preschool for all three-‐ and four-‐year-‐olds. It was a goal that people could grasp and get behind.
“We thought it was a key part of the early childhood agenda that could be lifted up and moved,” she said. “If you only talk about early childhood in a broad sense, people don’t understand it.”
Preschool was also a compelling strategic focus for Packard’s CFC Program. Research shows that preschool can be a powerful lever for improving children’s lives, yet California lagged behind the rest of the nation in providing preschool to its youngsters. By adopting a preschool focus, the Foundation could build on its historic commitment to early childhood issues, while strengthening the children’s advocacy field in California as a whole.
4
Williams, R. (2003). Riding the roller coaster at Packard. Foundation News & Commentary, 44(4). 5 Salisbury is referring to the book: Collins, J. (2001). Good to great. New York: Harper Business. Teaching Case: Evaluation of Preschool for California’s Children
8 The Political Climate Holds Promise
policy agenda or part of the public debate. At its core, the success of Packard’s strategy would depend on state-‐level policy change. 6 Policy-‐oriented grants would focus on activities that were appropriate for a private foundation to fund, including policy development, nonpartisan research and analysis, coalition building, and other non-‐lobbying activities. However, policy change was not the grantmaking program’s only goal. Packard also aimed to expand the capacity and improve the quality of California’s preschool system by supporting county-‐ and school district-‐based preschool programs, some already planned and others anticipated.
state-‐level policy change, Salisbury believed that an opening could exist in the next three to five years. In a few years, California would have a new governor and, because of term limits, many new legislators who could be educated about the need for universal preschool. Leaders in Los Angeles had made universal preschool a priority, supported by a local initiative with $100 million in funding. Other states were considering universal preschool and could serve as an example to California.
In addition, actor and advocate Rob Reiner had successfully led a ballot initiative—Proposition 10— that used a tax on cigarettes for early childhood investments. He was laying the groundwork for another ballot initiative that, if passed, would fund universal preschool through taxes on higher-‐ income individuals. Reiner was also an important ally because he headed the First Five California Children & Families Commission, which was created to oversee funding for early childhood issues from the tobacco tax. First Five was also putting major dollars into increasing access to high-‐quality preschool statewide. Packard Trustees Sign Off The goal of universal preschool resonated with Packard’s Board of Trustees. Early childhood investments had been a cornerstone of the Packard Foundation’s grantmaking for years. It was a passion of the Packard family, especially Lucile Packard, and key trustees including Lew Platt, a board member who succeeded David Packard as the CEO of Hewlett-‐Packard as well as Packard president Richard Schlosberg.
The initial dollar commitment was $9 million in 2003, with the expectation that similar amounts would be invested over the next 10 years. 7
To reach its goal of achieving universal access to high-‐quality preschool for all California three-‐ and four-‐year-‐olds, the program had three main components designed to work together to build support and demand for state-‐level policy changes:
6
The Packard Foundation does not fund attempts to influence specific legislation or ballot measures.
7 Though there were no guarantees, as the Packard Foundation makes annual grants rather than multi-‐year commitments. Yüklə 480,23 Kb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|