D. Project background continued
In order to best advise the trustees, and realizing that they were being asked to break new ground, staff researched applicable state and federal legislation and regulations to clarify what the foundation could and could not do to engage in the debate as a public charity. The results were summarized in a memo. [For detailed information on rules and regulations, see the Public Charity's Guide to the California Initiative Process.

TSFF Social Justice staff organized a Proposition 54 panel presentation for its June 2003 trustees meeting. Ward Connerly, the author of the proposition, and Eva Patterson, then executive director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights, debated the measure. Arnold Perkins of the Alameda County Public Health Department discussed the measure's potential impact on tracking infectious diseases and responding to health needs of all Alameda County's residents.

In July 2003, the trustees engaged in a lively discussion about the proposition and its implications for the foundation, its grantees, and the communities it serves, as well as the pluses and minuses of taking a public position. After careful consideration, the trustees voted to oppose Proposition 54. This was the first time that the trustees had publicly taken a stand on a statewide proposition. A recommendation by program officers for the foundation to become more deeply engaged in the No on 54 campaign was declined.

Following the trustees' decision, the Social Justice staff convened a meeting of nonprofit organizations to discuss how to increase voter turnout in communities of color that traditionally had lower voter turnout and who would be directly impacted by the electorate's final decision on Proposition 54. The convening included such organizations as the ACLU of Northern California, the League of Women Voters, Urban Habitat, ACORN, Chinese for Affirmative Action, the NAACP, the Ella Baker Center, and other civil rights and community organizing groups. The convening marked the first opportunity for these groups to share information about each of their voter engagement efforts and to strategize about how to achieve higher turnout by working together to share resources and expertise. Attendees were instructed that TSFF could only issue a single grant for $30,000, that re-granting was allowable, and that they should confer with one another and return to TSFF staff with a recommendation on a grantee agency. It was decided that the ACLU of Northern California would take the lead role. TSFF staff recommended, and the trustees approved, an expedited general support grant of $30,000 to the ACLU.

The grant supported a range of activities to educate the public and increase voter turnout. The ACLU held eight community education and outreach meetings in low-income communities of color. The ACLU regranted some of the funds to a number of organizations that attended the TSFF convening. These subcontractors conducted door to door outreach in target areas with historically low voter turnout. They also conducted a bilingual phone campaign that targeted 30,000 Asians and limited English speakers, engaging hundreds of young volunteers.

E. Theory of change
TSFF staff and board of trustees felt that if the public was informed of Proposition 54's far-reaching ramifications, they would vote against the measure. The "yes on 54" campaign was initially successful in framing the issue as one of privacy and a step towards creating a colorblind society. TSFF's grant supported efforts to reframe the issue to one of racial equality by highlighting how the proposition would interfere with research on healthcare and epidemiology, fair housing, and other issues important to the voting public.

TSFF's actions against Proposition 54 reflect a deep-seated organizational tenet. Foundations would not be able to serve their communities if community needs are not known. This is an especially important issue for community foundations such as TSFF that were created to serve the needs of geographically-specific communities. In our racially diverse and unequal society, racial data is critical for identifying disparities in education, health, and income, for example, all of which help to target limited funds where they are most needed.