Letters to the Editor: Criticizing Foundations Is Not Only Way to Produce Change

To the Editor:

Pablo Eisenberg has been a stalwart champion of better and more accountable philanthropy. All of us in the sector owe him a debt of gratitude for everything he has done, including the 37 years he served on the board of the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy.

But his recent critique of NCRP, of which I serve as board chair, misses the mark (“More Scrutiny, Transparency, and Leadership: 6 Changes Needed for Nonprofits in the Trump Era,” January 9). He inaccurately undervalued how the organization, to this day, serves as watchdog of foundations.

Despite the prevailing “culture of niceness” in philanthropy, NCRP created Philamplify, which conducted independent, honest, and critical assessments of nearly a dozen large foundations across the country. Some of these foundations cooperated. Some didn’t. Some agreed on the analysis and recommendations offered by NCRP and their stakeholders. Others didn’t. Regardless, we shared our assessments online and encouraged others in the sector to weigh in.

NCRP continues to be an important resource, especially to the media, about questionable and egregious practices by grant makers. For example, its CEO, Aaron Dorfman, recently criticized the influence of moneyed interests in the Trump administration. We blew the whistle on the Otto Bremer Foundation’s excessive executive pay and flagged potential conflicts of interest involving the George Henry Mayr Foundation, the University of Southern California, and former Los Angeles Rams quarterback Pat Haden.

There is no doubt that philanthropy still needs an independent watchdog. It’s a role that remains a top priority for NCRP as we implement a new strategic framework.

Over the years, we’ve learned that for NCRP to continue to effectively challenge grant makers to be accountable to the public and to prioritize and empower the vulnerable and underserved, it needs a holistic approach. Criticism alone isn’t effective. This — and our plan to expand our programming to also influence wealthy individuals who don’t give through foundations — is why I’m excited about the new strategic framework that will guide NCRP’s work for the next 10 years. The framework integrates:

Engagement with members and allies — from foundations, nonprofits, and others in the sector. NCRP alone can’t shift foundation and donor practices so that they are helping solve the most complex challenges our country faces, from wealth and education inequality to racism and climate change. We need to work together, especially with those from communities that don’t usually have a seat at the table, so we can use our collective power to ensure that the sector is an agent of equity and social justice, not of self-interest.

Building and sharing knowledge. Foundations and donors need persuasive, evidence-based content that makes the case for adopting practices that are transparent, promote accountability, and prioritize and empower those with the least wealth and opportunity. We need to learn from each other, share what works and what doesn’t, and add to the growing body of research around what makes for strategic, just philanthropy.

Providing grant makers with honest feedback, including both praise and criticism. Through Philamplify, our research products. and as a resource to the media, NCRP will continue to speak truth to power, even when — especially when — the truth may not be welcome. This watchdog of grant makers will continue to provide honest, critical feedback that is fair, nuanced, and inclusive of communities served by philanthropy.

Advocating for policies that promote and protect the public good. There is no doubt that the sector needs effective public policies that promote equity and justice. NCRP will pay especially close attention to tax policies that ensure a balance between the private and public sectors’ roles in promoting and protecting the public good.

Sherece Y. West-Scantlebury

Chief Executive
Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation
Little Rock, Ark.

Darren Walker’s Decision to Serve on Pepsi’s Board Is Wise

To the Editor:

I read with great interest Michael Edwards’ opinion piece “Foundation CEOs Shouldn’t Serve on Corporate Boards” and appreciate the points he makes about the moral and reputational hazards foundation leaders face when serving on such boards.

Mr. Edwards focuses on Ford Foundation President Darren Walker’s decision to serve on Pepsi’s board. He writes that the juxtaposition of radical social change with corporate coziness is “confusing” and that Mr. Walker’s “accepting a formal role with PepsiCo may stoke the suspicion that foundations are places where public and private interests overlap in ways that are unhealthy.”

Foundations are and always have been places where public and private interests overlap, starting with our dominant business model. Our endowment assets and income derive from the capital market: equity and debt investments in public and private companies; alternative assets such as private equity, hedge funds, managed futures, and real estate; and government bonds.

For virtually all private foundations, a reliance on and connection to the private-sector economy is not a side issue, as Mr. Edwards implies; it is built-in and central. If corporate involvement and dependency is the yardstick, we are all fundamentally “compromised” at birth.

Notwithstanding the widespread notion that grants are foundations’ core business, they are in fact a relatively small part of the whole. To the uninitiated, we look more like conventional investment funds with small giving programs, more predictably obedient to tax law than to mission. When push comes to shove, we are more dependent on corporate America than on social-justice champions.

Yet as engaged asset owners, and especially in concert with coalitions of like-minded investors, advocates, and experts on policy subjects, we have far more power to persuade and support causes such as the living wage, a path to stem the diabetes epidemic, climate-change action, and more.

Mr. Walker’s vision, as I understand it, is of the Ford Foundation as a fully engaged investor of all of its capital in pushing forward an ambitious social-justice agenda. Are there risks? Of course, and Mr. Walker will face many cited in Mr. Edward’s essay.

But if we foundations think and act systemically, as Mr. Walker is doing, and position ourselves alongside our allies for a broad, active role in the economy rather than confining ourselves to a more traditional back seat, I believe taking this step is worth the risk. In the current world of interconnected, urgent problems, where solutions will require a coalition of actors from all parts of society, Mr. Walker’s path is wise and necessary.

Clara Miller

President
Heron Foundation
New York City