FN&C asked: Should foundations respond directly to their critics or does that make matters worse?

A note about our unscientific survey: We called about three dozen grantmakers and grantseekers completely at random, without prior knowledge of how respondents felt on the issue, seeking only to capture sentiments from the field in a man-in-the-street format. Most people began to answer this question by saying, "It depends..."

Robin Atwood Pfeil, Executive Director, Springfield Foundation, Springfield, OH
I think you should never ignore somebody who is trying to discuss any sort of commentary or criticism. I think it's a mistake to immediately jump to an adversarial position, because their criticism can be constructive. I think it's important to make a cogent analysis of the situation and whether the argument has any merit.

There are some instances where it might be best to let sleeping dogs lie. You have to consider the source and context of the argument, the history of the argument, and also the political environment in which the comment is made.

I say all this assuming that the criticism is coming directly to the organization head or that someone has contacted the foundation directly. Criticism in the newspaper, or criticism that's not specifically addressed to your foundation requires you to make the same considerations. It becomes a bit more difficult to know whether or not a response is needed. I think that if the criticism is broadcast widely, especially if it includes misinformation, it needs to be addressed. There are ways to do it that are rational and reasonable. You've got an opportunity to educate the critic and the public.

Thomas Clements, Trustee, Clements Family Charitable Trust, Key West, FL
I've never had a critic. However, I think its best to respond in a positive fashion. You can always say something good. [Do you think it's wise to answer to national critics of foundations in general?] I think if you decide to respond-because obviously you don't have to-you would only choose to give a general statement with minimal identification of your own organization. But, if it's a direct criticism of your own foundation, then you need to work at how to best respond, and respond in a positive way. There's no point to slinging mud-well, it may be good for the soul, but it always comes back to haunt you.

David Enger, President, Hudson-Webber Foundation, Detroit
What a loaded question! It depends on the criticism, I think. There's some criticism that simply does not merit response. But if it's valid, the foundation should respond.

For example, if you're programming in education, and your foundation has taken a specific tack at trying to reform the system by doing charter schools, there's a whole contingent that doesn't like charter schools. If the contingent unites and criticizes your grant, I don't think the foundation can get into the mix about that. It's a philosophical difference that's inherent in the criticism. All a foundation can do is say why it's doing what it is. However, if there's a group of charter school enthusiasts and they criticize your charter schools grant, you should respond. They have the same common goal and purpose. It's a learning opportunity.

There's such a wide range of criticism launched without thought against foundations, and for that matter, against politicians and those trying to make a difference in general. If you responded to every criticism out there, you wouldn't have any time left in the day.

And, of course, there's always the issue of strategy. I think there are four questions you have to ask in deciding whether or not to respond.

1. Will the criticism damage the foundation or the effort the foundation is undertaking? 
2. Will responding relieve or remove the damage? 
3. Can we learn or advance the foundation's mission by working one-on-one with the critic-in other words, is it a learning opportunity? 
4. Can we advance philanthropy or the nonprofit field in general by responding to the criticism?

If the answer is no, then I don't think you should respond.

If the answer is yes, then you should.

Donald E. Poppen, Executive Director, Norman W., Jr. and Andrea H. Waitt Foundation, Dakota Dunes, SD
Well, that's a pretty broad question-I would say that it depends. In some cases, it's good to respond directly and in other cases its best to have one unified foundation voice. Sometimes I think volume speaks better than content. It depends on the situation, but for example if I'm dealing with Congress I know volume speaks a lot of words. I don't know if it does with the Wall Street Journal.

Mary Witten Neal, President, Foundation for the Tri-State Community, Ashland, KY
It depends on what the issue is. Often there is more than one underlying issue. In some cases, you have critics who are making assumptions that are unfounded. You can have people who are making criticisms that are coming from longstanding biases. If the source is not seen as credible, I'm not sure you would want to respond. But if there is a criticism that is coming from a credible source, it's worth clearing the record. If it's a small detail, sometimes it's not worth it.

Raymond Reisler, Executive Director, S. Mark Taper Foundation, Los Angeles

If it's a local story, then I think its incumbent upon the RAG or the individual foundation leaders of that community to respond. If it's a national story, and a national newspaper calls up for a reaction, I'd be inclined to suggest that individual foundation leaders consult with people like Dot Ridings and other national foundation leaders for a response. [Is a unified response best for national stories?] Unified, yes and no-I'm not saying there should be only one spokesperson, but if lots of Council on Foundations board members are called, it's worth checking to see what kind of thinking they are doing. Consultation with others first would be wiser that just giving an immediate personal response. And if it was important enough that a unified-meaning collaborative-response was necessary, then that would help.

David Miller, Executive Director, Denver Foundation, Denver
I think it's important to communicate with people who are critical with foundations. But I think the first and best way to do it is quietly and privately. So if there's an article in the newspaper that says the Denver Foundation is terrible, and the article quoted someone as having said that, I would call the person who said it and try to meet with him or her rather than entering into a battle in the newspaper. I think it's more professional, it doesn't fan the flames, and I think you're more likely to have an honest, candid conversation.

I can think of one case where someone was critical of us. One of our board members had drawn my attention to it, so I did call that person. When I pursued it, I learned it was a someone who had been involved with a grantee organization who was not happy with a decision our board made-it was kind of a sour grapes situation-but the way it was communicated to our board made no mention of that grantee relationship.

C. Harold Brown, President, A.J. & Jessie Duncan Foundation, Fort Worth, TX
If it's not directed to the individual foundation, the foundation shouldn't respond. If it is, then it should.

Scott McVay, Executive Director, Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation, Morristown, NJ
One of the problems of foundation work is that the practitioners can become arrogant-their hat size can grow from year to year. Even some persons who might be critics, who might get turned down in their applications for support or feel that they're not adequately heard, probably feel a lively sense of favors yet to be received, so they may mute their criticism. As a consequence, foundation folk have to be careful in how they respond to all inquiries and requests. They must treat queries with respect, and communicate forthrightly at each step in the application process. The extent to which foundations act in a straightforward manner will tend to reduce the criticism, but foundations should also deal individually with each criticism that comes along.

Robert DiLeonardi, Executive Director, VNA Foundation, Chicago
Critics should be responded to because there is a ton of misinformation out there. I think that anyone involved in philanthropy has some fundamental responsibilities, and one of those is to educate the public. These things tend to run in cycles, and it's trendy to attack right now. Thanks to the Wall Street Journal, there's this sort of cynical take on philanthropy right now that's just totally misplaced.

Ten years ago or more there was a film from Council on Minnesota Foundations called, "What is Philanthropy?" They went out in the street with a camera and a microphone and asked people that question. The answers were hysterical-but the non-funny part is that many people don't know. I think that myths are just perpetuated if you don't respond.

[Do you think it depends on the situation?] Saying, "it depends" is a cop-out. This is just a threshold responsibility if you're going to work in the field of philanthropy. I don't like the idea of philanthropy as secret world-I think foundations should be very open. If you're going to enjoy the benefits of not paying taxes, there's a little bit of responsibility that comes with it. If you don't like it, then give up your 501(c)(3) status. As you can tell, I'm not very opinionated.