NCRP launched Philamplify in 2014 as a safe vehicle for grantees and stakeholders to provide honest feedback to foundations. Given the power imbalance between foundations and grantees, grantees are often wary of providing foundations with constructive criticism. Yet, without grantee feedback, foundations may be unaware when they are underperforming and how they can get better.
When NCRP released its Philamplify report on the Walton Family Foundation last month, we also launched a new poll on the Philamplify website asking visitors to the site: “What is the top reason why a nonprofit would choose not to openly criticize a foundation?” The poll received 91 responses.
Respondents overwhelming chose “Fear of being ‘black-listed’ or de-funded” as the top reason for avoiding criticism, with 82 percent selecting that choice. Among the other answer choices:
- “Don’t want to come across as ungrateful” (7.7 percent)
- “Why bother? It won’t make a difference” (4.4 percent)
- “I don’t think nonprofits avoid foundation criticism (2.2 percent)
- “Don’t know the foundation’s operations well enough” (1.1 percent)
- “Too busy with work” (1.1 percent)
- “Nonprofits are not qualified to critique foundations” (1.1 percent)
No respondents selected the “Other” option.
It’s clear that many nonprofits are acutely aware of the power imbalance between funders and the organizations they fund. While such organizations may have the most information about what a grantmaker is doing poorly – and well – they also have the least recourse to express this opinion safely.
To coincide with this week’s launch of our latest Philamplify report on the Hess Foundation, “Will This Secretive Foundation Evolve Beyond Checkbook Philanthropy?” we’ve introduced a new poll tailored to the unique challenges we encountered conducting this assessment. Visitors can answer, “What’s the most important tool foundations can use to build transparent relationships with grantees?” choosing among a website, full-time staff, publicly stated goals and strategies, routine communication with grantees, social media, face-to-face meetings and site visits or other. They can also say that the foundation has no obligation to provide any such services.
The Hess Foundation is the most insular and least transparent foundation that NCRP has philamplified and the only one that has refused to communicate with NCRP researchers. As our complementary Philamplify video “Just How Hard Is It to Get a Meeting with the Hess Foundation?” details, the foundation’s trustees did not respond to NCRP’s attempts to contact them via email, phone calls, letters or even in-person visits by NCRP Executive Director Aaron Dorfman. The foundation has no website or full-time staff, and its mailing address is the office of its accounting firm, CohnReznick. It also does not make public its goals and strategies. The Hess Foundation’s grantees and philanthropic peers see this opaque behavior as a missed opportunity for greater impact.
Please visit the Philamplify home page to participate in the poll. Then check out the Hess video and recommendations.
Peter Haldis is a research fellow with the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP) and contributed to the production of the Philamplify assessment of the Hess Foundation. Follow @NCRP on Twitter and join the #Philamplify and #PhilamplifyHess conversations.
Leave a Reply