The National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy is under fire for a report it published last month that set several standards for foundations, including that they should give at least 50 percent of their grant dollars to help the poor and other disadvantaged people.
The California Wellness Foundation took the unusual step of canceling its membership in the committee and asking the organization to return a $10,000 grant. While several foundation leaders have sharply criticized the committee’s report, the California Wellness Foundation is the only one to have pulled financial support for the committee, which is a foundation watchdog in Washington.
“We rescinded the grant because being listed as a member of NCRP implies endorsement of its report,” Gary L. Yates, president of the foundation, in Woodland Hills, wrote in an e-mail message to The Chronicle. “We respect the diversity of the philanthropic sector and the independence of private foundations to honor donor intent, mission, and strategy. We do not endorse a ‘one-size-fits-all approach’ or benchmarks for all foundations.”
Mr. Yates said he called Aaron Dorfman, the committee’s executive director, to explain why the foundation was canceling its membership.
Mr. Dorfman said the committee would return all $10,000, which was payment for membership dues.
“I understand he felt the need to ask for those funds back,” Mr. Dorfman said. “It’s not that big a deal, and I don’t anticipate that other funders are going to follow suit. I think most people understand that when they give a grant to NCRP they may agree with our positions some of the time and they may disagree with our positions some of the time, but that it’s good for the health of the sector that there be an independent watchdog of foundations.”
He said the loss of the California Wellness Foundation grant would not affect the committee’s operations. The organization has a budget of nearly $1.4-million.
In its report, Criteria for Philanthropy at Its Best, the committee made about a dozen recommendations for good grant making and foundation governance (The Chronicle, March 12). In addition to the 50-percent threshold for giving to “marginalized communities,” it pushed foundations to direct 50 percent of their grant dollars to the operating expenses of charities, and to give away a total of 6 percent of their assets in grants each year.
The California Wellness Foundation was praised in the publication for awarding a significant portion of its giving as operating support.
Other foundation officials have also spoken out in public to deride the report.
Paul Brest, president of the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, in Menlo Park, Calif., has called the report “breathtakingly arrogant.” Two associations of grant makers, the Council on Foundations and the Philanthropy Roundtable, have raised objections to the committee’s standards.
Mr. Dorfman said he did not expect the harsh reaction. “I was surprised by the venom of some of the responses,” he said.
He said many people have misunderstood the report and that the committee has put a “myth-busting page” on its Web site to challenge some of the criticism.