Phase I Assessment Report

for

The Historic Columbus Foundation

The National Trust for Historic Preservation

Prepared By: Nancy C. Tinker, Program Officer, Joseph McGill, Program Officer

Southern Office, National Trust for Historic Preservation

March, 2006

Historic Columbus Foundation

Columbus, Georgia

Strategic Planning Process

Project Overview

 

A. Introduction

In the fall of 2005, the Historic Columbus Foundation (Foundation) contracted with the Southern Office of the National Trust for Historic Preservation to undertake the Strategic Planning Process. Within the past year, the Foundation has hired new executive staff and become immersed in a number of complex preservation issues. Eager to assess the Foundation’s current state, and to set future direction, the Historic Columbus Foundation asked National Trust staff to guide them through both phases of Strategic Planning. The pages that follow describe the first phase of this two-phase planning process.

From January 30 through 31, 2006, National Trust staff conducted twenty individual interviews with representatives throughout the community who were knowledgeable about the Foundation and familiar with its work. Interviews were confidential and were conducted in the historic Rankin House, headquarters for the Historic Columbus Foundation. Further background information is given in the pages that follow.

The Strategic Planning Process

The Strategic Planning Process was created by the National Trust to:

Support and strengthen organized preservation efforts at the state and local level; and

Increase the capacity of statewide and local nonprofit organizations to assist them in achieving preservation in their communities.

In January 1987, National Trust staff reviewed the preliminary results of a study on traits common to all effective nonprofit organizations. When these traits were considered in relation to those found in strong local preservation organizations, many were identified as common among preservation groups. Five were considered key to the success of any nonprofit preservation organization. These traits are:

clear definition and understanding of organizational mission;

strong leadership;

political savvy;

access to human, technical and financial resources; and

ownership, control or influence over historic property.

Community-based preservation organizations across the country have participated in the Strategic Planning. By 2005, more than 40 organizations have been assessed, representing urban, small city, and rural communities in all parts of the United States. Some have full or part-time paid staff; others rely solely on volunteers. Some participating organizations have been active for more than 25 years while others were organized as recently as last year.

In the summer of 2005, Historic Columbus Foundation Executive Director, Susan Lawhorne, became interested in having the Foundation participate in the program. Her hiring in May, 2005 and the Foundation’s involvement in several high profile projects provided the impetus and opportunity to involve the organization in the Strategic Planning process.

In the fall of 2005, National Trust regional office staff requested baseline data from Foundation staff. In addition, key individuals, representing a wide range of interests and associations in the community, were also interviewed. Collected data included information concerning preservation issues, local attitudes towards preservation, community perceptions of local organizations, as well as identifying future preservation opportunities.

Foundation board members were asked to complete board assessment questionnaires – providing insight into the strengths and weaknesses of the community’s preservation program. A written assessment summarizing the results of organizational profiles, the community profile, and the community assessment is included in the pages that follow.

Prepared by National Trust regional office staff, these pages will form the basis for discussion at a goals and objectives workshop planned for the Foundation on April 12, and 13, 2006. At that time, National Trust staff will facilitate this workshop making a verbal report to the board on the data gathered during the fall of 2005. This retreat is intended to aid the Historic Columbus Foundation in identifying various areas of program opportunity and future organizational growth. While National Trust staff will lead retreat discussion, the responsibility for implementing goals and objectives identified during the retreat, lies with the Historic Columbus Foundation.

 

B. Community Assessment Interviews

Prior to the goal setting retreat, National Trust Regional Office staff conducted interviews with a broad range of Columbus’ civic and preservation leadership. The purpose of the interviews was to give the National Trust an overview of issues in the community and opinions concerning the town’s preservation and history-related organizations. These interviews, as summarized in the pages that follow, have the additional value of providing the Foundation with an objective, balanced profile of local preservation and of the community’s attitude towards local preservation practice.

Twenty interviews were conducted on January 30, and 31, 2006. The questions were structured to first provide a community-wide perspective before focusing on preservation practice in Columbus. The following narrative provides a characterization of the responses to the individual questions. A full set of the questions used during the interviews is located in Appendix A.

What are Columbus’ three greatest assets?

This question is asked generally as an ice breaker, yet it often reveals the importance people put upon their heritage. Columbus is an example of such a revelation. The historic resources and in-town neighborhoods of Columbus were mentioned more often than any other single asset. Columbus’ river location, and the presence of Fort Benning, were identified as the next most important assets. Those interviewed remarked upon a philanthropic and supportive business community who donate time, resources, and leadership. Finally, those interviewed cited Columbus as a good place to raise a family, describing it as a town with money and vision.

What are the three most pressing problems facing Columbus?

This question is asked on the heels of the first to help expand the “field of vision” for the interviewee. Several individuals noted racial tension as an issue, and remarked on problems surrounding public education, especially in the elementary grades. Participants cited the local tax freeze as a significant problem, negatively effecting police and fire services. Individuals frequently mentioned the growth proposed for Fort Benning. Those interviewed understood Benning’s expansion would ultimately foster an economic boon, but in the short term, participants recognized strained city resources would be further straitened, and that a spot light would be held on currently stretched city services.

What is the image of historic preservation in Columbus?

This question was asked generally to gauge the image of historic preservation as a movement, not to gain opinions on the perception of the Historic Columbus Foundation. Opinions regarding the Foundation were gathered later in the interview.

Responses to this question were wide ranging. Several respondents were deservedly proud of Columbus’ history and the community’s many restored buildings. They understood the important contribution preservation makes to Columbus’ local and tourist economies. Many interviewees however, stated historic preservation was taken for granted by a large section of the town’s population and that the general public gave little thought to the economic benefit brought by a well developed preservation ethic. Many of those interviewed agreed local preservation activity was well known within a small circle of influence, but was much less well known, and understood, by the community at large. That is not to say that preservation practice is opposed by its citizens, it is to say that preservation practice is a background issue for many of Columbus’ population.

What is the image of the Historic Columbus Foundation?

As with Question Number 2, respondents were divided in their reply to this question. There were many who believed the community at large fails to understand the comprehensive work of the Foundation and its far-reaching accomplishments. Others expressed the view that the Foundation is directed by a small core of people who are dedicated to historic preservation; yet do not publicize the accomplishments of the organization within the larger community. As the organization’s most recent staff member, and the staff most publicly associated with the Foundation, Susan Lawhorne is held in high regard and is acknowledged to “be building a high level of trust.”

There was a generally held opinion that while the Historic Columbus Foundation was a highly respected organization with an established reputation, many of those interviewed expressed the opinion that HCF was in a period of transition. Many noted the financial problems surrounding the Salisbury Fair, noting it was intended to be the organization’s biggest fundraiser and HCF’s broadest outreach to the community. Others noted the organization’s desire to diversify its board and membership, while simultaneously maintaining commitment to sponsoring the Heritage Ball. Several of those interviewed suggested HCF re-examine fundraising and special events to determine if the investment for each event is worth the return.

When asked to judge the Foundation’s effectiveness and influence, people responded that the organization carries great influence and respect with the city and maintains an excellent working relationship with the Historic Preservation Commission. The Historic Columbus Foundation is perceived as bringing a wealth of skills and a cooperative spirit to many complex local issues.

How can the Foundation build its image?

More than half of those interviewed identified improved marketing and increased public education as the most important activity to improve the Foundation’s image in the community. Respondents suggested multiple avenues the Foundation might use in building its reputation. Activities included: continuing to seek more diverse leadership within the board, develop projects and programs that benefit historic neighborhoods, and design programs/curriculum which will educate children. Several of those interviewed identified a need to stabilize HCF’s operating fund, and to grow that account so that the organization “could do more of what we do so well.” Others recommended the organization needed to be conscious of its advocacy role and to take additional steps to be more inclusive. There were those respondents who believed establishing the Foundation as a community resource would help to solidify ties with citizens and grow HCF’s visibility.

Many of those interviewed stated a desire that the Foundation aggressively broaden membership, believing that membership cultivation would help to integrate the Foundation in the everyday lives of its citizens. Several participants were careful to define diversity as referencing more than race. For them, diversity involved socio-economic as well as religious demographics.

Are there preservation issues the Historic Columbus Foundation should be aware of and involved in?

Although the Foundation is deeply involved in a number of current and newly developing issues, this question was asked to give the organization a perspective on those issues the community believes to be important. Ten of the twenty respondents cited the goodwill and the many good working relationships HCF has established throughout the community. Just as many respondents noted the organization could position itself for a broader mission, remarking HCF should concentrate first on strategic planning, focusing attention on what the Foundation wanted to achieve in the next several years. Possible topics of discussion might focus on the following: 1) Fundraising and the need to conduct a capital campaign; 2) Decisions regarding future approach to HCF’s collection of house museums; 3) Potential development of HCF as an archives and history resource center; 4) Support for Mid-Town revitalization and assistance for in-town neighborhoods.

There were those interviewed who turned their attention to the Foundation’s financial condition. They believed it critical that the Foundation be established on a sound financial footing, and that the board of directors commit to creating long term financial stability for the organization, its associated properties, and Operating Fund.

C. BOARD ATTITUDE SURVEY

The Board Attitude Survey is a diagnostic tool designed to measure the health of eight organizational processes. The survey provides insights into how the Historic Columbus Foundation Board views itself as a functioning unit. The survey can indicate what processes the organization is doing well or not so well, and thereby help identify areas in need of improvement. Confidentiality of individual responses has been maintained throughout the process. The set of questions asked board members may be found in Appendix B.

The eight organizational processes measured by the survey are as follows:

Questions 1-5 Assessing Needs

Questions 6-10 Planning

Questions 11-15 Implementation

Questions 16-20 Evaluation

Questions 21-25 Managing Relationships

Questions 26-30 Motivation

Questions 31-35 Providing Resources

Questions 36-40 Developing Skills

There is no magic number or formula that indicates a perfect blend of these eight processes, because it is recognized up front that every organization will do one or more of these processes better than others. However, it is important to understand that each of these processes must be performed by an organization for its long-term viability. Also, these processes cannot be divided into “people” skills and “bureaucratic” limitations as a way to rationalize weaknesses. The Historical Columbus Foundation is only as effective as the people who serve its mission. Likewise, the people who commit their time and energy to the Foundation are only as effective as their preparation and organizational resources allow them to be.

The survey assigned the following values to the responses: 5 = very well; 4 = well; 3 = okay; 2 = poorly; and 1= not at all. The averages for the Historic Columbus Foundation are as follows:

Category I -- Assessing Needs

The survey indicates that the members of the Board of Directors who responded to the survey believe that the organization is doing an “okay” job [overall score of 3.84] of assessing the needs of the community, the Foundation itself, its staff, and membership.

Low -- “We collect information on what our members want and need.” Average Answer: okay, 3.0

High – “We spend adequate time considering community needs and relating our plans and priorities to the needs.” Average Answer: well, 4.3

Category II – Planning

The Board believes the Foundation is doing “well” [overall score of 4.16] of planning, identifying goals, evaluating HCF’s past performance, establishing objectives and tasks, weighing alternatives, and allocating workloads.

Low – “Our plans are based on careful consideration of alternatives.” Average Answer: well, 4.0

High – “We consider past performances, needs, our resources, and then set objectives.” Average Answer: well, 4.3

Category III – Implementation

The Board believes HCF is doing an “okay” job [overall answer of 3.86] of implementation, following through on plans, coordinating people’s efforts, coping with problems, consulting when plans change, and working together.

Low – “People are advised when problems arise in implementation plans.” Average Answer: poorly, 2.9

High – “People’s efforts are coordinated” Average Answer: well, 4.4

Category IV – Evaluation

The Board of Directors believes that the Foundation is doing an “okay” job [overall score of 3.86] of evaluation, reviewing past year’s work to identify needed changes, assessing weaknesses and strengths of staff and board member performance, and evaluating meetings.

Low – “We provide time to learn from past experience.” Average Answer: poor, 2.9

High – “Each year we review what each board member and each key staff person did in the previous 12 months to assess strengths and weaknesses in what was done and how it was done.” Average Answer: well, 4.2

Category V – Managing Relationships

The Board believes that the Historic Columbus Foundation is doing “well” [overall score of 4.06] of managing relationships, maintaining contact with other organizations, providing adequate information to “insiders,” resolving interpersonal problems, and delineating the distinctions between staff and board roles.

Low – “We maintain regular contact with other organizations (funders, similar organizations) to keep them informed.” Average Answer: okay, 3.6

High – “The roles of the board and staff are clearly defined.” Average Answer: well, 4.4

Category VI – Motivation

The Board of Directors believes that the Foundation is doing “well” [overall score of 4.28] of motivating people who are involved with the organization.

Low – “Jobs that are hard to fill are reviewed to see how they might be recognized to be more satisfying.” Average Answer: okay, 3.7

High – “People feel they belong.” Average Answer: well, 4.5

High – “People feel they are making a contribution.” Average Answer: okay to well, 4.5

Category VII – Providing Resources

The Board believes that HCF is doing an “okay” job [overall score of 3.9] of providing resources, such as offering orientation material for board members and volunteers, keeping records of community needs and resources, and of establishing accepted procedures for regularly reviewing the roles of board and staff.

Low – “We have agreed-to processes for evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of committee and board meetings and other working relationships.” Average Answer: okay, 3.5

High – “We have attractive print materials about our organization, jobs to be done, programs, and needs.” Average Answer: well, 4.3

Category VIII – Developing Skills Competency

The survey indicates that the members of the Board of Directors who responded to the survey believe that the organization is doing an “okay” job [overall score of 3.98] of promoting an environment in which those involved with the Foundation develop and expand new skills.

Low – “People are encouraged to develop skill and knowledge about conducting meetings.” Average Answer: well, 3.8

High – “This organization provides a learning environment in which people get support, encouragement and feedback.” Average Answer: well, 4.2

D. Membership Survey Analysis

A critical part of the strategic planning process included polling HCF’s membership to learn about their opinions. Survey forms were mailed to a random sample of the Foundation’s current membership, and those members were given time to complete and return the questionnaire.

Reponses to the membership surveys were reviewed and analyzed by the National Trust. Individual responses are confidential, but aggregate statistics are revealing. A thorough analysis of the membership survey responses follows in the next several pages. A copy of the actual survey form is found in Appendix C. (Some respondents submitted incomplete surveys and several questions allowed for more than one response. Therefore, the percentages on some survey questions will not total 100 percent.) The following narrative examines certain obvious trends and significant data.

Membership Profile of the Historic Columbus Foundation:

Questions 1 through 13 of the membership survey measures the length of membership, reasons for joining, and reasons for continuing membership in the Foundation.

An impressive 94 % of the Foundation’s members report they have been members for more than three years. In fact, 70 % percent say they have been members for more than ten years. It would be interesting to compare this impressive statistic with the Foundation’s own membership records. (Effective nonprofits keep records of their membership, including donation level, participation in programs and events, etc.)

Five and one half percent of HCF’s members have been with the group for less than three years. Extra effort should be made to orient new members and to integrate them proactively into existing programs and structures so as to avoid the phenomenon of having an old guard that is detached from the organization’s new members.

In examining the motivation of HCF’s membership it is clear that a general commitment to historic preservation causes them to join and keeps them as members. Eighty-one percent of HCF’s members said that a general commitment to historic preservation was “very important” in their decision to join. A total of 99.5 percent said that a general commitment to historic preservation was “very important” or “important” to their decision to join.

Other key motivators include interest in a particular project; 34.7 percent cited this as “very important” or “important.” (The most frequently cited project was Riverfest.) In addition, more than 35 percent said that being asked to join by a friend or associate was very important or important to them. Thus, we can assume that the membership’s stability has been successful in part through individual contact and promotion by existing members.

However, it is worth noting that a majority of respondents stated that professional or career connections to HCF, the Foundation’s special events, and visiting museums/property owned by the HCF were “not important” to their decision to join.

The organization’s members maintain their memberships for the same reasons they joined the Foundation in the first place. For example, 98.8 percent of the respondents cited a general commitment to historic preservation as “very important” or “important” in their membership renewal.

In evaluating these responses, it would seem that the Foundation’s membership believes in the cause of historic preservation. It would be improper to say that the long average membership tenure implies an absolute satisfaction with the organization’s programs. In our view, however, it is reasonable to conclude that the results of this section imply a deep level of support for the mission of Historic Columbus.

Participation in Historic Columbus Foundation Activities:

Questions 14 through 17 are intended to measure membership participation in the Foundation’s programs and activities.

Fortunately, the majority of the members responding – 53.7 percent – reported they have been asked to volunteer for the Foundation in the last year. Forty-six percent said they had not been asked to volunteer. Of those who say they were asked, 15.7 percent did it for between one and three hours a month. Forty-two percent of those surveyed have held board positions.

However, 48 percent of those who responded had given no time whatsoever to the organization.

Those who participated in the last year noted that they had volunteered for the following events: Riverfest, Heritage Ball, House Tours, Bibb City Project, Columbus Museums and School Tours.

It is important to note that successfully cultivating a core of volunteers is the difference between events that succeed, and those that do not. Sustaining this core, and fostering its growth, assists the organization with events, and permits “management” first hand experience in understanding who among the volunteers might work well in other capacities within the organization. Be certain to remember, volunteers, no matter their capacity, need orientation, guidance, and management. This could be achieved by staff or by a volunteer coordinator who has the time, capacity, and skills to offer the organization.

Public Image of the Historic Columbus Foundation:

Questions 18 through 33 of the membership survey measure how well the Historic Columbus communicates with its members, how well known the organization is, and what the Foundation’s overall image is with its membership.

The Historic Columbus Foundation’s current Mission Statement reads:

The mission of Historic Columbus Foundation, Inc. is to revitalize historic Columbus neighborhoods; educate the public about local and regional history; advocate the benefits that are derived from historic preservation; and preserve the historical, architectural, and cultural character of Columbus and its environs.

Ninety-three percent of respondents said they were fully or fairly well informed of the organization’s basic mission. Fifty-six percent felt fully or fairly well informed of the organization’s current programs.

However, this is in contrast to the 41.5 percent that feel fully or fairly well informed about the Foundation’s financial condition. This discrepancy seems to indicate that the Foundation has been less assertive in representing the day-to-day operations of the Foundation to its membership at large. Importantly, members who are ignorant of the financial condition of the Foundation are not as empowered or motivated to contribute financially nor are they well equipped to exert appropriate or informed leadership in sustaining the mission.

Although the Foundation is considered well known to the friends and associates of the existing membership, it is not viewed as well-known to the general public. Among respondents’ friends and associates, the Historic Columbus Foundation is said to be known somewhat by 12 percent and known widely or very widely by a total of 85 percent. Ninety-two percent believe that their friends and associates view the Foundation favorably.

Clearly, the recognition factor among the general public is impressive. While 43.5 percent consider it somewhat known, only 1 percent said the Foundation is little known to the general public. Fifty-four percent of the Foundation’s members think the general public holds a favorable opinion of HCF. Notably, 22 percent think the general public is neutral.

These percentages improve in reference to key decision-makers in the community. For example, 52.7 percent of respondents consider the Foundation very widely known among decision-makers, and an additional 33 percent consider it widely known. And, 80.5 percent of respondents thought the reputation of the Foundation among key decision-makers was favorable, although 7 percent didn’t know the decision-makers’ perception of the Foundation.

If the Historic Columbus Foundation intends to move forward, a key issue will be raising awareness, approval, and support among the general public. This often has a ripple effect in raising those same items with key decision-makers, particularly if they are elected officials who are responsive to their constituencies.

In terms of leadership, mission, and effectiveness in political processes, there seems to be consensus that the performance of the Foundation is adequate. For example, 86 percent of the membership respondents found the Foundation’s leadership to be effective; with an additional 10 percent sometimes agreeing and sometimes not that the leadership is effective. Seventy-two percent agree that the organization’s mission is communicated clearly, with an additional 24 percent sometimes agreeing. Percentages drop slightly when examining whether the Foundation effectively engages in community political processes – 71 percent agree and 17.5 percent sometimes agree.

In general, the Foundation’s membership appears to doubt the organization’s human, financial, and technical resources are adequate to do the Foundation’s work effectively. However, a considerable number do not know whether resources are adequate. For example, in terms of financial resources, 24 percent considered the organization’s financial resources adequate, 34 percent considered them sometimes adequate and sometimes not, while 7 percent considered them inadequate. Thirty-one percent said they did not know. With “I don’t know” being in the 31 to 44 percent range for an understanding about adequacy of human, financial, and technical resources, there is clearly a communications issue at work.

Composition of the Board of Directors:

Questions 34 through 40 measure the membership’s knowledge and opinions about the composition of the Board of Directors.

Sixty-three percent of the respondents said they personally know some or even many of the board members. This is an unusually high result that may be a credit to the “small town” nature of Columbus. On the other hand, 3.7 percent of the membership know very little about who is on the board or have no knowledge of who is on the board. These large discrepancies may indicate a gap between two roughly equal groups, one that is “in the know” and the other that is not.

This significant imbalance could in turn cause problems and potentially undermine membership unity as a whole. The board clearly needs to become more visible and available to the whole of the general membership, not just to a minority (albeit a sizeable minority).

In our view, the survey results show that the membership would like to see the Foundation’s board be representative of the community’s various racial and ethic groups (42.5 percent, very important or important) and various socio-economic groups (81.4 percent, very important or important). It is important to the membership that board members live in Muscogee County (79.6 percent, very important or important) and occupy historic neighborhood residences (84.2 percent, very important or important). Finally, the membership feels strongly that the board should include professional preservationists, architects, and planners (91 percent, very important or important).

Advocacy and Effectiveness of the Historic Columbus Foundation:

Questions 41 through 46 measured member’s opinions about the involvement of the HCF in controversial issues and the organization’s overall effectiveness.

Almost 38 percent said that the Foundation had never been involved in issues they considered controversial. Of those who believed that the Foundation had indeed been involved in controversial issues, 43.5 percent thought it appropriate while 4.6 percent disagreed. A whopping 51.8 percent did not respond directly to this question.

Twelve percent did not think there were any major issues that the Foundation had not been involved in but should have.

Activities and projects that members offered as ones the Foundation should be involved in include Midtown, local archives, community planning, homelessness and Bibb City.

The survey used other groups as a frame of reference to evaluate the Foundation’s effectiveness. Compared to other historic preservation organizations, 67 percent thought HCF was highly effective or effective, 17 percent above average, 1 percent ineffective (and 16.6 percent didn’t know). Compared to other public organizations within the community, the percentages shifted somewhat; 84.2 percent thought it highly effective or effective, 8 percent above average, and 1 percent ineffective (and again, 1 percent did not know).

When asking people to identify other community groups to which they belong, we are in effect asking them what other groups they believe are effective or represent important causes. Other groups mentioned most frequently were River Center, Little Blessing Nursing Center, Library, Westville, Church, School, Youth Soccer, Youth Baseball, Georgia Trust, Linwood Cemetery, Colonial Dames, Jr. League, Springer Opera House and Rotary.

Membership Satisfaction with the Historic Columbus Foundation:

The final section of the survey addressed the membership’s overall satisfaction with various aspects of HCF. Members were also given an opportunity to make specific program suggestions in this section of the survey.

Across the board, in terms of current programs, level of advocacy, information and services provided to members, and overall membership, the percentage of respondents that were “very satisfied” never rose above 42 percent. “Satisfaction” ranged from 49 to 50.9 percent. Those dissatisfied and very dissatisfied were consistently in a 1.8- to 4-percent range.

Programs often mentioned as especially pleasing or personally satisfying include children’s activities, historic preservation initiatives, façade loan programs, lunch and learning, Riverfest, historic tours, revolving tours, heritage corner tours, the Heritage Ball, the Midtown project, and travel tours.

Programs frequently cited as needing improvement are fundraising and Riverfest. In addition, members reported that financial risk needs attention with more emphasis on urban design, real estate, news media coverage and historic tours.

New programs most often suggested were membership development, costume wearing events, social events, historic district tours through the city and Christmas tour of homes every other year.

E. FINDINGS

In reviewing the various tools used to complete this assessment, several significant aspects regarding the Historic Columbus Foundation emerged. These findings, while contained elsewhere within the body of this report, are highlighted here for special emphasis.

The key findings of this report are:

The Historic Columbus Foundation is a well known organization with a recognized tradition of both advocating for historic preservation and accomplishing the same for 40 years.

Those interviewed believed overwhelmingly that historic preservation provides Columbus with an economically sound and positive image. There was however, a general consensus that this positive opinion was not broadly held within the larger community. It is important to note that this opinion does not conclude that preservation practice is opposed by Columbus’ citizens. This is to say that preservation practice is a background issue for some segments of the town’s population.

More than half of those being interviewed believed preservation practice was very important for those living and working in Columbus. Most interviewees stated that cultivating the membership base and developing outreach programs would help to integrate the Foundation into the everyday lives of citizens and the business community.

Those interviewed were fully aware of the Foundation’s excellent reputation, but were careful to acknowledge HCF had entered a period of transition, with many opportunities available for pursuit. All interviewed were pleased with HCF’s current options, expressing a desire to explore these opportunities and to exploit them for the benefit of Historic Columbus.

Those interviewed stated strongly that the Foundation should examine its financial position and seek long-term solutions for stabilizing the organization’s day-to-day operations. Interviewees also stated special events should be assessed to determine their value to the organization and the broader community.

 

In undertaking Strategic Planning, the Historic Columbus Foundation has taken a significant step in building the community’s preservation program. Staff and board members are deeply committed to strengthening the organization and to improving its public profile. The future of the Foundation, and its continued development

will, in part, hinge on how well the organization addresses the points raised above.

F. CONCLUSION

The Historic Columbus Foundation has a strong base of support for its programs and an established tradition that is recognized in selected portions of the community.

Questions concerning the Foundation include integrating the organization into the broader community, building and diversifying its membership base, and in creating a solid financial footing for the organization.

As the acknowledged leader of Columbus’ preservation movement, questions concerning preservation practice and future programming are issues for the Foundation to address. Those questions include raising the organization’s public profile, engaging the broader community, and in establishing solid financial footing. The board retreat scheduled for Wednesday and Thursday, April 12 and 13, 2006, will be an opportunity to more fully understand these issues and to plan how the Foundation can build on its strengths to address future needs.