By Ilene Mack
I have spent more than three decades in the world of philanthropy, as a program officer at a major national private foundation. I entered with little or no knowledge about my new profession, but what I knew for sure was that it was worlds away from the for-profit, corporate sector that I had known for the prior ten years. I believed it was a sector that existed on a higher plain, which did its work with honor, respect, and integrity. There was no bottom line to be concerned with; we were in the business of doing good—of caring, and being compassionate—and good we did. We were idealistic, believing that with enough people of good will working together and as a community, positive social change could be achieved. Poverty would be alleviated, if not eradicated; education would be reformed; healthcare would become equitable; and discourse would be civil. We were in a partnership with our grantees. There would be accountability and transparency, leading to effectiveness and efficiency. The playing field would be leveled. We didn’t need a bulldozer—fairness, and the notion that we were all in this together, would do the job. I was, in short, part of a field that intended to be a “foundation” for change and betterment.
I treated my grantees as I treated my friends, relatives, business associates, and colleagues—with respect and humility. Just because I worked for an institution that gave out money did not make me superior to my grantees. Now that I am retired, my perspective, often from the other side of the desk, has altered. I am afraid that much of the field and some of my colleagues have forgotten the meaning of their positions at the foundations they work for and the roles that they play.
There is always a tacit power struggle in the relationship between grantee and grantor, a power inequity that permeates the relationship, whether we admit to it or not. The words we use to describe our sector are telling. While we are all nonprofit organizations, we know what we mean when we say nonprofit. They are the askers; the supplicants, if you will; the doers, the providers of services. They are in the trenches. We, however, the philanthro – pists, pods, and poids, represent the money and we dispense the largesse. Perhaps most importantly, we can say no. The playing field can only be leveled to a certain degree. But the truth remains: we, the foundations, do not have to be responsive to the needs of our grantees, whether or not their request fits into our guidelines. That is a reality. And we have all sorts of fancy ways of declining requests. What is not okay, however, is changing horses in mid-stream with not a word of warning, reneging on our commitments and misleading our colleagues.
My foundation colleagues use the words transparency, accountability, and honesty. Yet, lately, I have heard woeful tales of reprehensible behavior on the part of foundations and their representatives. I hear stories of foundation executives giving verbal commitments to longtime grantees, while in the midst of a project that they have supported and promoted, only to turn around and make the astounding pronouncement that the grant will not be forthcoming as their guidelines have changed. And no, there were no close-out grants to ease the way. So what has been a fruitful, beneficial project now is cut off at the knees. There doesn’t seem to be any concern that not only has the grantee organization been mistreated and misled, but that all the people whose lives may have been bettered are dismissed.
Here’s where the power inequity is most visible and most painful. The foundation has every right to change its guidelines. However, to do so with little or no communication to the nonprofits that seek assistance and believe they are within the guidelines is neither transparent nor accountable. And the nonprofits have no recourse. They must accept what is in fact a fait accompli.
If I passed along any message to the young people who worked with me over the years, it was the absolute certainty that the name of our foundation was not our own. We were liaisons, advocates, connectors, and representatives. We did not endow our organization. We had a responsibility to our Board. But we were not the Board. The best we could do was to be honest to our grantees, our colleagues, our Board, and to each other. We said “no” quickly, did not mislead, and did not equivocate. Any correspondence, information, advice—whether spoken, written, or technologically transmitted—was truthful.
I am old enough to know that John Kennedy was right when he said “life is not fair.” But we who purport to do good works, to be caring and compassionate, must be exemplars of that behavior which we demand from our grantees. We are in the business of slicing the pie so that more people can come to the table and have a share. It is a grave mistake to believe that wealth and power equal omniscience. It is sadder still when that largesse is misused and misdirected.
Has our field lost its bearings? Has what Kurt Vonnegut used to call “simple common decency” disappeared from foundation ethics? While the troubling evidence I have seen sadly says “yes,” I am hopeful that this is only a trend that can be reversed. For if ever there was a need for a firm “foundation,” it is now.
Ilene Mack joined the Hearst Foundations in 1974. She helped to set up the systems and procedures that professionalized the organization and created a mission statement and guidelines for giving. Over the next 33 years, the Foundations’ assets grew from $136 million to $1 billion and $740 million was given to nonprofits around the country. Over the years, Ms. Mack was promoted from Program Officer to Senior Program Officer and in 2005 was made the Program Director, Grants. She retired from the Foundations in December 2007.
Ms. Mack serves on the boards of three nonprofit organizations concerned with the improvement of education, youth, and the nonprofit sector: The Teachers Network IMPACT II, a national organization that encourages and supports teacher leadership in public schools, where she is actively involved in fundraising and board development; ENACT, an organization using creative drama in public schools to facilitate students’ social and emotional learning and behavior change and stimulate self-reflection; and the Nonprofit Coordinating Committee of New York, a membership organization that provides information, technical assistance, and professional development to the staff and board members of nonprofits throughout New York City. Ms. Mack is also on the National Advisory Board of the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute, an educational partnership designed to strengthen teaching and learning in schools across the country; has served on several committees for Independent Sector; and also participates in the programs and activities of the Council on Foundations. She acts as a speaker and panelist for several local and national philanthropic and educational organizations, and is looking forward to remaining connected to the philanthropic community.
Thank you Ilene for sharing your story. I am one of many social entrepreneurs that have a vision to bettering the world and the future of humanity through technology and social innovation. To most people, my vision will most likely be viewed as idealistic and some people may go as far as saying it is a fairy-tale. However, as quoted by Apple; “People Who Are Crazy Enough To Think They Can Change The World, Are The Ones Who Do.”
Social entrepreneurs face an interesting dilemma as do many of the nonprofits; how do you get attention and make your organization standout from the others? What makes you different? How can you self fund while “doing good”.
In your blog and in the follow up commentary there is an theme that if followed, seemingly creates a solution to the problem:
– Transparency
– Accountability
– Honesty
– Quality Control
– No Favoritism
– Common Decency
You have been in the industry since 1974, what are your opinions on creating a giving brand that sets a new global standard and makes them transparent to all? Building an ethical foundation that is created with trust, transparency and using the power of the masses through modern technology and mass media. Using mass media and modern technology to better humanity? It’s been used in every other industry, why not here?! We need to empower people to become socially involved with causes they care about and with the ability to make a difference. I have personally met with many Social Entrepreneurs that want to find the solution… that want to make a living doing something that’s “Good” and have true intentions of helping others!
I may be living in a fairy-tale and I may be idealistic and “Life isn’t fair” — However, I hope that never stops people from trying, speaking and wanting to make a difference and make an impact on the future of humanity. I would love to hear your thoughts and opinions.
Sharif Youssef
It isn’t easy to criticize foundation practice publicly the way Ilene Mack, to her credit, did recently. As I have also found, every nonprofit has more than one horror story about really bad manners, misleading “promises,” and simply lying by foundation staff. But nonprofit organizations can be and often are just as disingenuous in their dealings with foundations.
On the one hand, we shouldn’t find this all that unusual. Why should we think that the philanthropic sector is any different from other sectors in its distribution of caring, mediocre, atrocious, selfish, and even heroic behavior? People are usually self-interested agents as hundreds of studies in Public Choice theory have shown.
On the other hand, foundations still shine with a patina of holier-than-thou (or at least so we believe). Nonprofit organizations (as supplicants) and foundation colleagues have no incentives and few safe opportunities to give specific feedback. The stories told over drinks can be appalling and hilarious diversions, but nothing comes of that. To paraphrase a comment Tony Proscio once made in another context, bad behavior by foundation staff has “no natural predators”!
What can be done? I don’t know, but I do know that boards and executive directors need to attend more closely to these elements of quality control. They are responsible for the tone and culture of their organizations. Some foundations actually now look for humility in new employees. Grantee Perception Surveys have made a big difference for some foundations. Wouldn’t it be nice, though, if there were more use of Grantee Perceptions Surveys that compared foundations? The Center for Effective Philanthropy has done some of that. I believe that honest, candid, collegial behavior with grantees does help lead to better results. But in a sector that rightly makes a big deal of taking risks, few foundations seem willing to risk seeing what their reputation really is.
Thank you, Ms. Mack, for bringing to light and sharing with the public the unfortunate reality of what sometimes goes on behind closed doors at private grantmaking institutions.
Having been involved in the field at a family foundation for two decades, I, too, could share a number of stories learned in confidence from many of our grantee partners. Quite often, donors pull funding from unsuspecting nonprofits without warning or explanation. In many cases, foundation grant application guidelines are too lengthy and demanding: costing nonprofits valuable time that could otherwise have been devoted to serving their constituents. Too often, applicants are denied funding without any insight into why they were rejected, and given no opportunity to learn and improve upon their applications so that they may be successful with future requests.
It seems to me that too many individuals in our field have forgotten why we’re in the business of philanthropy in the first place. In order to really make strides, foundations and nonprofits alike should be behaving and thinking like partners, collaborating on programs that solve the issues that plague our society. It will take a lot of work for foundations and nonprofits to start believing they are on equal footing. Perhaps greater understanding can come from shared experiences, open dialogues, and active listening. I would encourage all foundation officials, staff and board members to volunteer real services with a favorite nonprofit. I’ve been volunteering for the New York Women’s Foundation for several years and it has profoundly changed the way I think about and interact with other service providers and the people in my community.
Kudos to Ilene for voicing what many of us “supplicants” in the nonprofit sector continue to feel is the imperious attitude of many foundation program officers. Ilene is among those foundation folks whose intelligence, sensitivity, honesty and enthusiasm for the opportunities to do good in this world with so many inequities make asking for money not something to dread.
As the former executive director of United Neighborhood Houses, with earlier employment at the Vera Institute and Wildcat Services Corporation, I had numerous occasions to apply to a myriad of foundations, particularly in New York City. The best representatives of the philanthropic sector were those who listened respectfully to what I presented, asked challenging but pertinent questions, which could often led to programmatic improvements and let me know all along the process what to expect both in terms of timing and of funding amount. They returned my calls in a timely fashion and did not let bad news arrive belatedly in written form.
Has anyone thought of replicating the idea of principal for a day with program officers being executive directors for a day in a nonprofit agency? This would enable them to better understand the extraordinary complexity of juggling the multiple strands which make up the work of a nonprofit. Maybe this would reduce some of the demands on the time of executive directors and various staff members to respond to unnecessary demands and engender greater respect for those who work in the service delivery nonprofit sector.