Involving the Philanthropic and Corporate 

Community in Violence Prevention 

Planning and Action

A Guide to Engaging Business and Philanthropic Partners in Community-Based 

Violence Prevention

Acknowledgments: 

This paper is the result of a collective effort on the part of the Business and Philanthropic Engagement 

Working Group of the National Forum on Youth Violence Prevention (Eugene Schneeberg, Department 

of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Faith Based Initiatives; Anna Johnson, Department of 

Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Communications Suzanne Immerman, Department of 

Education; Mark Roscoe, Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Faith Based 

Initiatives, Robin Delaney-Shabazz, Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention; Jack Calhoun, Senior Consultant, Department of Justice; Lyman 

Legters, (Casey Family Programs) Senior Fellow, Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office 

of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Members of the Working Group planned and carried out 

a series of interviews with Forum site leaders and philanthropic leaders with the intent to develop a 

product to support sites in engaging business and philanthropic partners in their local violence 

prevention efforts. The paper is in alignment with the Forum's strategic plan, which has a specific focus 

on business and philanthropic engagement.

Thanks to all of the Forum sites and Philanthropic partners for participating in the interviews and 

providing such invaluable information and insights. Special thanks to Jack Calhoun for taking on the bulk 

of the interviews, compiling the information, and writing the original draft of this document.

In partnership, 

Lyman Legters, Chair

Business and Philanthropic Engagement Working Group

National Forum on Youth Violence Prevention
Involving the Philanthropic and Corporate 

Community in Violence Prevention 

Planning and Action

A Guide to Engaging Business and Philanthropic Partners in 

Community-Based Violence Prevention

Table of Contents

1. Purpose of This Document........................................................................................................................ 1

2. Background: The Necessity of a Long-Term and Comprehensive Approach to Reducing Violent Crime . 2

3. The National Forum on Youth Violence Prevention ................................................................................. 2

4. Why the Philanthropic Sector Cares About Crime and Violence.............................................................. 3

5. Violence Prevention Needs the Philanthropic Sector Because of its Unique Characteristics.................. 5

6. The Philanthropic Community Can Support a Wide Range of Violence Prevention Activities................. 6

7. Making Your Case...................................................................................................................................... 8

8. Barriers....................................................................................................................................................11

Involving the Philanthropic and Corporate Community in Violence Prevention Planning and Action i 
1. Purpose of This Document

Our intended audiences for this paper are city leaders and those who provide services for them, and 

both the private and business philanthropic community.

For city leaders, we hope to convey

• Why partnering with the philanthropic community is essential; 

• The wide variety of roles the philanthropic community can and has played; 

• How to frame requests for support from the private sector (making the case); and

• Identifying and helping to overcome barriers to private sector involvement. 

For the philanthropic community, we hope to convey

• Why supporting violence prevention efforts is essential; 

• The variety of ways the private sector has framed its support for violence prevention activities; 

• Examples of what the private sector has funded; and

• What questions the philanthropic community needs to answer when venturing into violence 

prevention waters.

This document should make clear that any successful, comprehensive crime and violence prevention 

effort requires the private sector as a partner to be successful—and is an essential partner.

This is not a theoretical document. This document is based on the direct experience of those shaping 

policy and delivering services in addition to the philanthropic community that invest in and supports 

those services. This paper grew directly from formal interviews with seven individuals directing citywide 

violence prevention efforts, and 17 philanthropic entities along with information drawn from the

collective experience of the Working Groups and extensive history in 10 National Forum on Youth 

Violence Prevention cities and 13 cities in the California Cities Gang Prevention Network. City leaders

interviewed included those from Boston, Mass.; Chicago, Ill.; Detroit, Mich.; Memphis, Tenn.; New 

Orleans, La.; Salinas, Calif.; and San Jose, Calif. Foundations interviewed included the Allstate 

Corporation, the Boston Foundation, the California Endowment, the California Wellness Foundation, the 

Edna McConnell Clark Foundation (New York, N.Y.), the Joyce Foundation (Chicago, Ill.), Kaiser 

Permanente (Northern California), the Kellogg Foundation (Battle Creek, Mich.), the Lake County 

Community Foundation (Chicago, Ill.), the New York Community Trust, the Open Society Foundation

(New York, N.Y.), SAIL Advisors Research, Inc. (New York, N.Y.), the Skillman Foundation (Detroit, Mich.), 

State Street Foundation, the charitable arm of the State Street Corporation (Boston, Mass.), and the 

Stoneleigh Foundation (Philadelphia, Pa.). The foundations' scopes ranged from local to state to

national. Invaluable advice and direction was provided by the Council on Foundations (Washington, 

D.C.) and the Foundation Center (New York, N.Y.). Casey Family Programs, though not formally 

interviewed, also informed the development of this document.

The interviews were conducted over a 5-month span, beginning in March 2013. 

Involving the Philanthropic and Corporate Community in Violence Prevention Planning and Action 1 
2. Background: The Necessity of a Long-Term and Comprehensive Approach

to Reducing Violent Crime

The formal and more mechanistic definition of what comprises a “comprehensive strategy” includes

blending prevention, intervention, enforcement and reentry (work with offenders returning from prison

or residential placement) into an overall action plan advocated for and driven by city leaders. What 

“comprehensive” really means is that little in a community will change unless all key governmental and 

civic entities such as schools, law enforcement, public health, and the faith community commit to a wide 

variety of specific actions.

When families fray, schools fail to educate, and the economy cannot produce jobs, crime often rises. 

Typically, society turns to law enforcement to help “hold things together,” to help keep the social fabric 

from deteriorating further. This is both short-sighted and wrong, for it places an unfair and impossible 

burden on local public resources, and fails to hold the rest of us accountable. 

Violence creates individual victims. Violence also creates an unseen, more difficult to quantify victim: 

the community. Violence results in people too frightened to shop, kids worried about assault on their 

way to school, and people who cannot use parks. Fear breeds isolation and inhibits communities from

developing appropriately.

Society’s response to the grim wake left by crime is often as dysfunctional as the fragmentation caused 

by crime—a mentoring program here, an afterschool program there, a targeted law-enforcement sweep 

here, a job training program there. We usually do this instead of developing a comprehensive response

that pulls in and harnesses the energies of all key community sectors, who will direct their efforts to 

stop crime and violence and help communities create an environment that does not produce crime.

Comprehensive strategies take a great deal of time and effort: while some interventions within a 

comprehensive approach will produce immediate results, comprehensive planning and action that

changes how a locality does business requires a long-term commitment to achieve lasting results. For 

example, investing in street interventions tends to yield immediate, though short-term, results. 

Investing in upstream prevention strategies, like early childhood education, can take up to a decade to 

yield tangible benefits. 

3. The National Forum on Youth Violence Prevention

Modeled in part on the 13 California Cities Gang Prevention Network, and on principles undergirding 

Federal Promise and Choice Neighborhoods, Safe Streets/Strong Communities, and Defending 

Childhood, the Forum was launched in 2010, with three primary goals:

1. Elevate youth and gang violence as an issue of national importance. 

2. Enhance the capacity of participating localities as well as others across the country to more 

effectively prevent youth and gang violence. 

3. Sustain progress and systems change through engagement, alignment, and assessment.

To accomplish these goals, the Forum utilizes 

• Multidisciplinary Partnerships (government and nongovernment agencies together with faithbased, community, business, and philanthropic entities) 

• Balanced Approaches, including prevention, intervention, law enforcement and re-entry

• Data-Driven Strategies

• Comprehensive Planning to guide the work

Involving the Philanthropic and Corporate Community in Violence Prevention Planning and Action 2 
Forum cities include Boston, MA; Camden, NJ; Chicago, IL; Detroit, MI; Memphis, TN; Minneapolis, MN; 

New Orleans, LA; Philadelphia, PA; Salinas, CA; and San Jose, CA. 

Underscoring the importance of foundation involvement in the Forum's work, Vikki N. Spruill, President 

and CEO of The Council on Foundations said, "The Council on Foundations applauds the efforts of the 

National Forum on Youth Violence Prevention to engage the philanthropic sector in its work. Tackling 

many of society's most intractable problems will require cross-sector partnerships like this. Many of our 

members find that collaboration affords them the best avenue for positive outcomes in areas like 

reducing violence and creating safe communities."

4. Why the Philanthropic Sector Cares About Crime and Violence

For foundations considering why they might support crime and violence prevention efforts, and 

agencies that petition foundations for support, the following framework may be useful. It should be 

noted, however, that few foundations directly fund crime and violence prevention efforts. Their 

portfolios may include youth development, education, community development, economic 

development, health care, or family support, but rarely crime and violence prevention. In a very real 

sense, however, there is evidence that funding in these areas helps to reduce violence, especially within 

the context of a larger strategy. Every city in the California Cities Gang Prevention Network and the 

National Forum on Youth Violence Prevention has received support from a variety of private 

foundations. Why?

The Importance of Comprehensive Planning

Some city leaders indicated that their completed, comprehensive plan gave them a strong hand. It 

reinforced their case for two reasons. First, foundations viewed their request in the context of an 

articulated plan that had the backing of city leaders. Therefore, foundations viewed the request not in 

isolation, but rather as part of a robust, multi-sector, citywide plan. Tonya Allen, Vice President of the 

Skillman Foundation said it best: “Everything we did seemed disconnected ... Our traditional way of 

doing business was not working ... The cohering glue became the Forum with its emphasis on pulling all 

together, of blending prevention, intervention, and enforcement.” Second, foundations that did not 

have violence prevention in their charters could participate in ways consonant with their portfolios. 

Thus a foundation committed to early childhood education could help with the plan's prevention 

segment; those pledged to youth development could fund intervention aspects of the plan such as 

mentoring or summer work.

Moral/Social Justice

All were driven by the horror of violence, the staggering number of deaths, of shootings, of lives and 

families torn apart, and of jails bulging with young offenders. Project Officer Julio Marciel at the 

California Wellness Foundation said, “The reason we got into it 20 years ago was because too many kids 

were dying. We could not engage ourselves in 'normal' health work given the number of deaths of 

young people—especially by guns.” Cathy Weiss, Director of the Stoneleigh Foundation, framed 

Stoneleigh's commitment in terms of rights violated: “We couldn't ignore that our number one civil 

right, safety, is an elusive right for too many of our youth ... we cannot ignore the injustice of living in a 

persistently violent neighborhood.” Sylvia Zaldivar-Sykes of the Lake County Community Foundation 

pointed out the injustice brought about simply by geography, that “Zip codes matter. New Trier High, 

one of the best schools in the nation, is 5 miles away from a high school where I can show you a pyramid 

of memorials of slain kids taller than you.” She argues passionately that the quality of services a person 

receives and the sense of safety and security must be guaranteed by right, not by home address.

Involving the Philanthropic and Corporate Community in Violence Prevention Planning and Action 3 
Violence as a Public Health Issue

“The African American community has trauma, has post-traumatic stress syndrome, but guess what: 

they can't get out of Vietnam. It doesn't end,” said Shawn Dove of the Open Society Foundation. Many

foundations cited public health concerns as their reason for involvement, framing their responses in 

terms of responding to an epidemic: constant exposure to crime causing significant trauma-related 

consequences. Doctors treating children and adults living in high-crime areas who exhibit post-traumatic 

stress syndromes; kids who become obese because they are unable to play in the street or park; and, as 

public health would identify the “source” of the epidemic, in this case violence, it would find violence

concentrated in certain neighborhoods. “It touches everything we do: our hospitals, the communities in 

which they're located, employees,” asserted Jodi Ravel, project officer at Kaiser Permanente in Northern 

California. By taking a public health approach, Ravel believes “that with evidence-based interventions, 

violence can be prevented.” The Report of the Attorney General's Task Force on Children Exposed to 

Violence suggests: “Exposure to violence is a national crisis that affects approximately two out of every 

three of our children.”

Safety as a Necessary Pre-Investment

In many cases, the philanthropic community saw its investments in other areas either eroded or 

jeopardized because of the pervasive effects of violent crime. “We fund health, education, family 

economic success, but no matter our route in, we kept running into the youth violence issue,” said 

Sharnita Johnson, Kellogg Foundation Project Officer. Johnson's comments were echoed by many, 

among them Paul Grogan, President of the Boston Foundation: “We've been a long-time funder, 

beginning with the 10-Point Coalition in the mid-'90s ... the core reason had to do with pervasive fear in 

the community, fear that meant we couldn't fully realize our investments in other areas.” 

Violence as a Community Killer

The California Endowment “is a private, statewide health foundation with a mission to build a stronger 

state by expanding access to affordable quality health care to underserved communities and improving 

the overall health of all Californians” (www.calendow.org). The Endowment has recently focused most 

of its efforts on 14 communities in California. Their first task under the umbrella of health was to 

determine the top health concern in each community. Endowment Project Officer Barbara Raymond

said the results were stunning: “In every community, the top concern was violence and its prevention. It 

was more salient than a doctor's office, than parks, air, food—an issue we weren't even thinking about.” 

Raymond went on to assert that violence was weakening citizenship, eroding communities: “They told 

us, ‘Yes, we need a grocery store here, but if we don't feel safe shopping, it doesn't make any 

difference.’ This was a show stopper for us ... Violence was crippling communities.” 

Economic

“Crime affects us all. And Chicago is Allstate's home town, and what affects the city, affects us,” said

Victoria Dinges, Allstate's Vice President for Corporate Social Responsibility. She maintains that for 

Chicago to become a global city and economic powerhouse such as Los Angeles and New York, it had to 

“deal with Chicago's violence problem.” 

Business leaders in Oakland's Fruitvale District warn the local Chamber of Commerce and the City 

Council that crime and violence are causing the small business community to leave, thus depriving the 

city of urgently needed tax dollars for essential services such as police and schools, in addition to 

depriving citizens of convenient places to shop. The same has occurred in Detroit.

Georgina Mendoza, Salinas, Calif.'s, Director of Community Safety, pressed the community 

viability/economic argument: “We've got to talk about making the city attractive for businesses and 

Involving the Philanthropic and Corporate Community in Violence Prevention Planning and Action 4 
employees. Do businesses want to relocate here? Do kids want to come back here after college?” she 

asked. 

5. Violence Prevention Needs the Philanthropic Sector Because of its Unique 

Characteristics

Community Member

“We're not just a funder, we're a community member ... A person might come into our ER. Their next 

door neighbor might work for us, and we might fund a trauma-based intervention program at one of our 

employee's schools,” said Jodi Ravel of Kaiser. “Most of the local and state foundations feel they are

members of the community, that they are not simply funding a program or attempting to solve a 

problem, but rather helping to improve that community about which they care deeply. We could not 

become a global city unless we dealt with Chicago's violence problem head on,” said Dinges of Allstate. 

Even national foundations such as Kellogg feel a strong pull to assist Detroit, because it is actually their 

community staff read about it daily, and Detroit’s civic and political leaders are their colleagues and 

friends. To create community, to bridge the knowledge and social gap between the city's foundation and 

corporate leaders, Robert Lewis, Jr., then-Vice President of the Boston Foundation, began “Boston by 

Night,” where people sign up to tour and meet core city residents. “And they all come back transformed, 

seeing that the kids are just like theirs, kids with the same dreams and aspirations,” said Paul Grogan of 

the Boston Foundation. 

Risk

Although some of those interviewed felt the foundation community to be “risk averse,” most felt private 

sector funders were in a position to gamble on new ideas in a way that government could not. “We're 

society's venture capitalists,” said Julio Marciel at Wellness. “We can fund pilots, learn and spread the 

word, hoping the government will pick up and support the successes.” Risk-taking seemed integrally 

linked to a foundation's knowledge of a community, of effective local actors who “might not have all the 

audits and 990 forms,” said Zaldivar-Sykes the Lake County Community Foundation, but who are doing 

something no one else is, like “an afterschool program run by a grandmother in an area where no one 

rides a bike, no one plays in the street ... I really can't prove it, but I know there are fewer dead kids 

because of her.” Nina Vinik, Program Director at the Joyce Foundation, reflected on how the risks 

associated with funding violence and gun violence reduction activities might be mitigated: "Many 

foundations are wary about entering violence prevention waters, and thus seek cover. We're the cover!" 

Flexibility and Speed

Although all have guidelines, application dates, and funding priorities, all referenced their ability to 

move fast. This was directly connected to their knowledge of the community, of key actors, and how 

pressing the local needs are. “We're right on the ground, and we can get started fast. We seek to invest 

in community groups close to the action, trusted by the community,” said Roderick Jenkins, Program 

Officer at the New York Community Trust.

Legitimizing and Spotlighting

Support from a local foundation or a bank can bring recognition and credibility to a program laboring 

under a small budget in a small corner of a city. Such programs are usually mission-driven and 

community-anchored, and have little time or budget for outreach and publicity. Because of its 

knowledge of the community a foundation can discover and spread the word about such nuggets. “Our 

funding and presence provides legitimacy that might convince others to contribute,” said Allen of the 

Skillman Foundation. 

Involving the Philanthropic and Corporate Community in Violence Prevention Planning and Action 5 
Aligner

Funders have mandates, credibility, boards of directors, and, yes, egos. Although guarding their 

reputations, many referred to their ability to bring colleagues and peers together, focusing and helping 

to make disparate efforts more efficient and effective. Boston's State Street Foundation serves as a 

prime example: “We bring together private and public sector funders, experts and stakeholders to learn,

share, and act in order to align funding to address gaps and barriers that prevent youth violence in five 

specific neighborhoods in Boston where 80 percent of the violent crime occurs,” said Sheila Peterson, 

Vice President of Corporate Citizenship at State Street. 

Leveraging

Those seeking support from private sources should not view a particular foundation or corporation in 

isolation. Given their usually high status in a community, private funders can generate resources from 

others. This, in turn, makes them look good, for they can report to their boards that their initial grant 

spurred contributions from others, including the state and federal government. “Our money is meant to 

be leveraged,” said Marcial at Wellness. “We're most interested in the level and nature of coordination 

and focus,” asserts Peterson of State Street. “We have to transcend our institutional egos,” commented 

Raymond at the Endowment. Such egos can be overcome by “the cogency and immediacy of the 

problem, and the clarity of the numbers. The research was there, the data, and the approach and 

solutions agreed upon,” said Raymond.

6. The Philanthropic Community Can Support a Wide Range of Violence 

Prevention Activities

“Nothing is off the table. Whatever a foundation's mission, they have a role in this,” said Shawn Dove of 

the Open Society Foundation. As discussed, most private sector entities do not have violence or crime 

prevention or gun violence prevention in their portfolios. However, because effective comprehensive 

violence prevention strategies engage so many civic and governmental actors in addition to covering a 

wide variety of operational areas, the opportunities for philanthropic sector involvement are vast and

limited only by the ability of local leaders to show how parts of the city's violence prevention work fit

into the philanthropy's particular mission. 

Listed below are just some of the many ways foundations can support local violence prevention efforts.

Research

Foundations can help identify the scope and depth of a city's crime problems, where crime 

concentrates, where service gaps are located, and what evidence-based programs exist to help 

positively impact youth who are at risk of engaging in community violence. An example of this is 

Boston's Foundations Collaborative. A city might be tempted to dive into “solutions” immediately. Tragic 

deaths and fear often spur quick action. Foundations are some of the few entities with the resources to 

help a jurisdiction get to know and understand the root cause and key levers of the violence problem 

before they leap to a quick fixes and often superficial solutions. 

Convening

“Typically perceived as neutral, philanthropic organizations are not beholden to any particular ideology, 

political party or administration. This role as a neutral convener can be instrumental in bringing together 

a diverse and broad alliance of agencies, funders, and community partners, which in turn can lead to 

Involving the Philanthropic and Corporate Community in Violence Prevention Planning and Action 6 
multi-level opportunities for solutions at the community level.”1 Foundations can fund the initial 

thinking and planning; they can fund community forums, essential to discovering what crime-affected 

communities think, and how they might help; they can help fund a consultant to help write a citywide 

plan; they can underwrite the cost of conferences, and can support city and community leaders to 

attend relevant conferences in cities across the country. The Boston Foundation, State Street 

Corporation, and the United Way of Greater Boston and Merrimack Valley support both research and 

monthly convening of the philanthropic community in order to focus and coordinate investments, thus 

maximizing efficiency and effectiveness and avoiding duplication.

Staff and Capacity Building

• City Capacity. City budgets across the nation are being slashed. Staff is at a premium. 

Comprehensive violence prevention work necessitates at least one dedicated staffer. While 

some cities like Salinas and Sacramento have actually created such positions with city funds, 

most cities have had to rely on outside help. The Stoneleigh Foundation has funded a Fellow to 

help organize and drive Philadelphia's comprehensive planning process: “We fund fellows who 

work inside and alongside government to translate research into policy and practice changes to 

improve how we as a community respond to the needs of vulnerable children,” said Cathy 

Weiss, Director of the Stoneleigh Foundation. The Skillman Foundation in Detroit has done the 

same. 

Because of deep and in some cases crippling budget cuts, the Kellogg Foundation and Skillman 

have helped to provide stopgap funding for “essential” city services, such as helping to keep 

recreation centers open and providing support to police efforts. “If youth don't have recreation 

available, they'll get into trouble,” said Johnson of the Kellogg. 

• Neighborhood Capacity. Many foundations, among them the California Endowment, the 

California Wellness Foundation, the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation, Skillman, and Kellogg, 

will help beef up the capacity of programs doing the tough on-ground work in crime-besieged 

communities. This can mean staff support, work with boards, assistance with record keeping, 

financial management, and reporting. To help build neighborhood capacity, the Wellness 

Foundation contributed $1 million to help support neighborhood Gang Reduction Youth 

Development Zones in Los Angeles. 

Policy Support

Some, like the Joyce Foundation, will address legislative issues directly. The California Endowment 

focuses on administrative policy changes such as those in the school discipline and restorative justice 

arenas. Some foundations sit on local boards that help govern the implementation of a city's 

comprehensive violence prevention plan, giving advice, making connections and sometimes providing

funding. Foundation presence often legitimizes a city's efforts. This can lead to vital connections with 

other leaders such as those in the medical, research, and corporate arenas.

Strategies 

Below is a list of suggested strategies that positively impact youth violence. Each strategy opens a broad 

array of proven and promising programs.

1 Badeau, Sue. 2012. “Philanthropic Engagement with Community Youth Violence Prevention Initiatives.” Making 

the Link, Issue 2. Washington, D.C.: Grantmakers for Children, Youth and Families. Retrieved from 

http://www.resourcelibrary.gcyf.org/sites/gcyf.org/files/resources/2012/nfyvp_philanthropic_engagement_4.5.12

.pdf (PDF, 6 pages) 

Involving the Philanthropic and Corporate Community in Violence Prevention Planning and Action 7 

 
Prevention Strategies:

• Family support and engagement

• Early childhood education

• Neighborhood improvement of schools

• Recreation

• Teen involvement

• Youth employment and career 

pathways

Intervention Strategies:

• School-to-work transition

• Alternative schools

• Restorative justice

• Mentoring

• Peacekeeper patrols

• Street outreach and interrupter 

resources

• Neighborhood mobilization (following a 

shooting)

• Drug abuse counseling/trauma-based 

care

Enforcement:

• Police athletic league

• Communication equipment for citizen 

volunteers

• Citizen academies

• Support for community officers

• Ceasefire

Reentry Strategies: 

• Mentoring

• In-prison transition

• Housing assistance

• Mental health, trauma, and drug 

counseling

• Job training

• Transitional employment

• Support groups

7. Making Your Case

First, know all you can about the foundation/business from which you seek funds. And remember that if 

you have talked to one foundation, you have talked to one foundation only. They are all different—

research all possibilities. If they've funded something similar, demonstrate the link. Link the crime and 

violence issue to what a particular foundation has funded in the past. “I wouldn't change other founder 

mandates; rather, I would take what a particular foundation does, let's say family support, and show 

them how it is linked to long-term violence prevention,” said Cathy Weiss of the Stoneleigh Foundation. 

But even if a foundation has funded nothing like this before, don't let this hold you back. The horrors of 

Newtown, Conn., and Aurora, Colo., have created a new climate. As pointed out above, philanthropic 

entities that had not previously funded anything in the violence prevention arena have now begun to do 

so. 

Second, know clearly what you want. Tell them what will change because of their involvement. Equally 

important, be able to describe why you want support, and how your work fits into a larger goal, a more 

compelling social purpose, like cutting juvenile deaths, helping to restore crime-ridden communities, 

reducing immobility through trauma-based care, helping kids get to school without fear, or getting a 

positive adult into the lives of kids who have never had one. If applying in writing, provide a short, 

cogent summary, for example: “Project Hope requests $150,000 to train, hire, and support four exinmates who will work nights to reduce violence in Antioch's Cantwell District.” 

Third, be clear about what results you are seeking. Results can include outcome measures such as a 

reduction in homicides and shootings in a certain neighborhood, process measures such as number of 

third graders being tutored or ninth graders being mentored, civic measures such as safer, more usable 

parks, or youth who don't fear going to school and adults who don't fear shopping at local stores.

Involving the Philanthropic and Corporate Community in Violence Prevention Planning and Action 8 
Ground it and make it local. Note that “some projects have two audiences: the direct participants and 

the indirect beneficiaries.”2 Direct participants might be youth on the edge of gang activity. Indirect 

beneficiaries might include people living in violent neighborhoods.

Fourth, be clear about the work, and who will do it. “Describe the activities. Tell the funder about the 

project's ‘output,’ or how many ‘units of service’ you intend to deliver over a specific time period.”3

Fifth, know how your work fits in with or complements the work of others. Foundations love to see 

synergistic efforts, agencies working together and maximizing each other's work. Ideally, a petition for 

private support should be part of a larger citywide, comprehensive plan blending prevention, 

intervention, reentry, and enforcement. Demonstrate backing from others—the mayor, police chief, 

schools, or peer agencies. “One key reason is the mayor. He's shaken most of the hands in this city. 

When the mayor visits, he always brings funders ... its trust. The mayor is fully in back of it along with 

the business and foundation community,” said Jennifer Maconochie, Director of Strategic Initiatives and 

Policies, Office of the Police Commissioner, Boston. Efficiency and effectiveness are key watchwords.

Violence prevention work takes all of us.

Sixth, be creative about showing how their investment will make a difference in human terms. Take 

your potential donor to a crime-ridden community or city school, or bring along a person who might be 

positively affected by your work—a youth, a mother, or a returning inmate. If in writing, the Minnesota 

Council on Foundations recommends describing “a problem that is about the same size as your 

solution.”4 You are proposing to do something very specific in a specific area, not eliminate poverty. In 

addition, “don't describe the problem as the absence of your project.” Not having enough mentors is 

not the problem. Mentoring is a proposed solution. The problem is the number of youth without positive 

adult support and the problems they have as a result. 

Seventh, if your prospective donor shows no interest in your initiative, ask for capacity-building 

assistance such as record keeping, data collection, staff training, or communication. The business 

community is especially amenable to this sort of support. Think about a “loaned executive,” a volunteer 

from a business' legal, financial, or management resources as possibilities. 

Eighth, promise full communication and partnership. People need that they are doing something 

important and worthwhile. Foundation executives are not ATMs. A check alone does not meet this 

fundamental human need. Ask for financial support and personal involvement. “The real vision is to 

form a partnership, not just ask for a little here and there ... to invite the private sector to be part of the 

governance of the project. We need to engage, not beg, to forge a partnership, not just ask for a check,” 

said Mario Maciel, Director of the Mayor's Gang Prevention Task Force in San Jose, Calif. Get your 

potential funder caught up in your passion and mission. 

Ninth, make sure they know that you're a credible agency. Your board, legal status, and financial history

will empower you to steward their money responsibly. The Minnesota Council on Foundations advises

that almost all funders will need an IRS letter validating your tax exempt status; a list of your board of 

directors; a financial statement from your last complete fiscal year; a recently completed audit; and a 

2 Davis, Barbara. 2013. “Guidelines for Writing a Virginia Literacy Foundation Matching Grant Proposal.”

3 Ibid.

4 Davis, Barbara. 2005. “Writing a Successful Grant Proposal.” Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota Council on Foundation. 

Retrieved from http://www.mcf.org/system/article_resources/0000/0325/writingagrantproposal.pdf (PDF, 6 

pages)

Involving the Philanthropic and Corporate Community in Violence Prevention Planning and Action 9 

 
budget for this fiscal year and next (p.4).5 If you don't have all of this, admit it. This might be where you 

need the most support.

Tenth, let your funder know that you want to be held accountable. If your funder won't join your board

or advisory committee, or sign up for a full partnership, work on an accountability plan with them. This 

might mean monthly calls, periodic reports, or a site visit. Know that they have to justify their decisions 

to their superiors or board, so help them.

Eleventh, remind your funder that their other investments are being eroded or vitiated because of 

violent crime—funding for afterschool programs means little if kids are afraid to attend school. In a 

similar vein, investments in restaurants, grocery stores, or drug stores are lost when crime forces 

businesses to pack up and leave. “Our ‘Neighborhood Funders Group’ wants to know more about public 

safety because they're worried about their investments in other areas. Detroit's major energy provider 

will help with summer jobs, but they want to do something during the year to better protect their 

customers and their investment,” said Annie Ellington, Chief Service Officer, Office of the Mayor, City of 

Detroit. The local business community should be extremely interested in your work.

Twelfth, make the cost-benefit case. The data that follows is national in scope. Applying the cost figures 

for your particular jurisdiction can buttress your economic argument, which is critical for engaging the 

business and philanthropic partners.

According to the Center for the Study of Violence Prevention at the University of Colorado 

(http://www.colorado.edu/cspv/): 

• Homicide is the second-leading cause of death for youth between the ages of 10 and 24.

• Homicide has been the leading cause of death among African Americans between the ages of 15

and 24 for more than 10 years.

• Half of all juveniles murdered are killed with a firearm.

• Twenty-two percent of U.S. teenagers (ages 14 to 17) report having witnessed a shooting.

• Youth are three times more likely than adults to be victims of violence.

• On a typical day, six or seven youth are murdered in this country.

• Youth 24 years of age and under constitute over 41 percent of all firearm deaths and nonfatal 

injuries.

• Youth 7 to 17 years old are as likely to be victims of suicide as they are to be victims of homicide.

• Violent victimization of juveniles is greatest between 3 p.m. and 4 p.m. 

• The cost of youth violence exceeds $158 billion each year.

In 2009, The Justice Policy Institute reported that approximately 93,000 young people are held in 

juvenile justice facilities across the United States. Seventy percent of these youth are held in statefunded, post-adjudication residential facilities, at an average cost of $240.99 per day per youth. Added 

to this are enormous medical and “lost productivity” costs associated with violent crime estimated by 

the American Public Health Association to be roughly $15.270 billion. With states facing serious 

budgetary constraints and Attorney General Eric Holder's advocacy for sentencing flexibility for “lowlevel, nonviolent drug offenders,” the time is opportune for investment in evidence-based, costeffective community-based programs.

5 Davis, Barbara. 2005. “Writing a Successful Grant Proposal.” Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota Council on Foundation. 

Retrieved from http://www.mcf.org/system/article_resources/0000/0325/writingagrantproposal.pdf (PDF, 6 

pages)

Involving the Philanthropic and Corporate Community in Violence Prevention Planning and Action 10

 
Additionally, there is significant research on “return on investment” for implementation of programs 

and strategies intended to prevent and mitigate youth crime and violence. The Washington State 

Institute for Public Policy lists a variety of successful programs (http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/topic.asp? 

cat=18&subcat=0&dteSlct=0) such as Nurse Home Visitation, Mentoring, Job Training, Diversion, Drug 

Courts, Intensive Probation, and In-Prison Therapeutic Communities that reduce crime and recidivism, 

thus saving the taxpayer money. Cure Violence (http://www.cureviolence.org/) and the National 

Network for Safe Communities (http://www.nnscommunities.org/) each of which targets the most 

violent offenders and most violent neighborhoods, can point to impressive and often dramatic results.

8. Barriers

Interviews were conducted with seven individuals running citywide violence prevention initiatives. One 

of the questions addressed the "challenges and barriers" each faced when trying to involve the private 

sector. What follows are the seven most frequently identified barriers and suggested ways to overcome 

them. 

“It's Messy and Some of the Kids Just Aren't That Pretty.”

–Jennifer Maconochie, Director of Strategic Initiatives and Policies, Office of the Police Commissioner, 

Boston, Mass. 

Many foundations will prefer working with younger kids, truants, or families. Violent youth in violent 

neighborhoods present tough long-term challenges, and given that many such youth have multiple 

issues—drug abuse, no high school diploma, and trauma to name a few—success takes a great deal of 

effort and of time. If a foundation is uncomfortable with this population, show them that they have a 

role in other areas, or show them the evaluations of Ceasefire, service, restorative justice, and summer 

employment and recreation programs.

“It's a Hard Sell, Especially When Violence Doesn't Go Down Quickly. We Need Investments for the 

Long Term, and These Are Hard to Come By.”

–Michelle Fowlkes, Executive Director, Memphis Shelby Crime Commission.

Making sure to get some quick wins was the most-frequently articulated response to this challenge from 

those running comprehensive programs in their respective cities. But the quick win had to be in the 

context of a long-term commitment. Examples of quick wins included ridding a park of drug users, 

cleaning up a blighted neighborhood, ensuring safe passage for children on the way to school, having 

police commit to community-oriented policing, and cutting violent crime in a specific neighborhood. 

“The Needs Are So Clear and Immediate, But Sometimes We Just Have to Be Patient.”

–Georgina Mendoza, Director, Community Safety, City of Salinas.

While the crime and violence issue pressed hard and begged for immediate intervention, both Maciel in 

San Jose and Mendoza in Salinas felt they had to be content, at first, with a relationship. A business 

representative joined Salinas' Community Alliance for Safety and Peace board, and “She has fallen in 

love with our work,” said Mendoza.

Involving the Philanthropic and Corporate Community in Violence Prevention Planning and Action 11
“Why Should Kids Who've Been in Trouble Be Rewarded with a Job? ... It's Like 'Hug a Thug' ... What 

about the Kids Who Are Obeying the Law and Going to School, But Who Have a Hard Time Finding 

Work ...?” 

These were comments heard by Mendoza in Salinas, and some variants of this theme were heard by 

others. This most frequently applied to offenders returning from jail, those whose job prospects were 

slim and of whom employers were wary. Counter arguments included: the fact that many would 

recidivate and again hurt the community if the city did not help; that there were many vacant entrylevel, sensitive jobs; and that the project proposed provided intensive support. Recent studies 

conducted by the John Jay College on YouthBuild AmeriCorps showed that those involved become more 

connected to their communities, grow to help more people in their personal lives, trust authorities and 

neighbors more, and respect themselves more. Or, as Father Greg Boyle, Director of HomeBoy 

Industries, puts it: “Nothing stops a bullet like a job.” 

Difficulty Finding Vendors to Do This Tough Work

This was frequently cited as a major challenge, the response to which clustered in four areas: (1) 

supporting “traditional” agencies, like the Boys and Girls Club in Salinas and Big Brothers/Big Sisters in 

Philadelphia who agreed to take on tougher kids; (2) providing more support, training, and oversight for 

those neighborhood/storefront entities; (3) getting commitments from employers to take on those who 

have been in trouble, and having them talk to/sell their corporate peers; and (4) adopting “Ban the Box” 

policies—opening non-sensitive city jobs to those who are trying to exit the criminal justice system. 

“The Philanthropic Community Has a Hard Time Collaborating.” 

While city directors were pledged to a citywide plan blending prevention, intervention, enforcement, 

and reentry, some directors felt that each member of the philanthropic community tended to “do its 

own thing.” While joint funding of certain specific initiatives was common, formal and strategic 

cooperation was not. Two examples of exceptions were Allstate in Chicago leading a major, coordinated 

drive and State Street Corporation in Boston doing the same.

Changing City Leadership that Impedes Sustainability

Comprehensive planning and action must be viewed as a strategy, not a program—a new way of doing 

city business, not a collection of initiatives. Thus the work had to be woven into the city’s fabric. Several 

suggestions emerged:

• Ground the strategy into the community and ensure community participation. When Cora 

Tomalinas, citizen activist in San Jose, Calif., was asked whether the Mayor's Gang Prevention 

Task Force would continue under a newly elected mayor, she responded “You don't understand. 

It's not the mayor's, it's ours.” 

• Presence in the city budget for programs or staff.

• Appropriate staff job descriptions. 

• Memoranda of Understanding between participating agencies.

• Change in practice, e.g., community-oriented policing, new school discipline policies, literacy 

classes in third grade, data sharing between law enforcement and schools, data sharing 

between law enforcement and child welfare.

• Ability to point to successes, either reductions in violent crime, increase in high school 

graduation rates, or polls showing less fear among citizens in certain areas.

• Ensuring that the initiative's governing body—task force, commission, etc.—included leading 

representatives from the governmental, community, service, and philanthropic sectors.

Involving the Philanthropic and Corporate Community in Violence Prevention Planning and Action 12