As the title of the blog suggests, I actually was intrigued and interested in our reading this week (probably in the minority). Indeed, I was struck by the various opinions of the authors, notably Prewitt (2006) and his historical survey of foundations. For the most part, Prewitt (2006) seems to be skeptical of foundations in terms of substantive accountability:
"The foundation sector is, by definition and law, largely undemocratic, for how else to characterize a wealthy elite who apply tax protected dollars to enact their vision of the public good" (p. 374).
Now the reason I cited this (sorry for the research paper format), was because I was curious what you guys think about this statement? To me, Prewitt seems to be wary that foundations are undemocratically and unproportionally asserting their own notion of the public good, thus disenfranchising those who do not have millions of dollars to influence public opinion or social change. My question here is, do you guys agree with this? By and large, I think foundations are beneficial to the public, and so does Prewitt, but he also believes that foundations should more substantively be held accountable for the 'supposed' public good they are fostering and promoting.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAs much as I value the saying: "it's important to know your history to know where you are going", I did not find Mr. Prewitt's reading intriguing. Prewitt put too much emphasis on historical events that it overshadowed his foundations critique. Dan, I am glad that you chose to briefly clarify Mr. Prewitt's observation of foundations.
ReplyDeleteAs for foundations being 'undemocratic', I do not think that is a fair analysis. Prewitt did not exactly provide substantial evidence to prove such a point. Some might operate undemocratic but I would not say all. For instance, the Community Foundation for Greater Buffalo (CFGB)'s 21st Century Fund prides itself on offering its members an opportunity to engage in a 'democratic' and "participatory decision making process whereby each voting member of a broad, diverse, intergenerational membership has one vote." (Here is the link of CFGB: http://www.cfgb.org/giving-circles/21st-century-fund/) I know that there are always exceptions. However, it is important to not group all foundations as one of the same.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteVery nice post. Prewitt poses a very interesting question as far as if foundations are accountable and if they are even considered to be democratic. I agree with Tamaria's post as far as Prewitt not providing enough evidence on the democratic issue.
In the grand scheme of things, they do need their annual financial statements audited by a certified public accounting firm. So, there is some accountability issues there. We have all talked about form 990's extensively so I won't go into what needs to be reported when they are audited.
Back to the democratic issue. We live in a democratic society and it is what our country very much prides itself in. I find it hard to believe that any agency, whether it is a nonprofit, for profit or foundation is not democratic in some way. The board of directors always has a say in things, and voting always needs to take place on many issues.
I look forward to hear more comments from other members of the class because this certainly is an interesting take on foundations. Thanks for the post Dan.
I think Prewitt (and Dan) is identifying a much larger issue than whether or not foundation boards are internally democratic in their grant-making process. It seems that Prewitt is referring to the fact that foundations, and the people who run them and give money to them, decide where the money should go; there is little external democracy. The nonprofits do not decide (who are is a sense at the mercy of foundation funding), and the majority of everyday people do not decide because they do not command the power and wealth of the foundation.
ReplyDeleteGranted there are many different types of foundations and many of them do a lot of good. I’ll plug the local Broome County Arts Council’s United Cultural fund, which gives much of its money away as operational grants with no string attached. http://www.bcartscouncil.com/united_cultural_fund.asp
Also, below is a link to a list of the top largest 100 foundations in the US: http://foundationcenter.org/findfunders/topfunders/top100assets.html It is interesting to look at their sites with our CN 2.0 rating questions in mind. How many of these foundations would get a good accountability and transparency rating? How do they publish their results?
Again though, I am still thinking about band-aid solutions to problems (as I discussed in an earlier blog post) and I wonder how much foundations contribute to applying band-aids rather then working to eliminate systemic causes of social problems, hence the criticism that Dan and Prewitt are highlighting.
I also was intrigued by the information about foundations, as one of the nonprofits I am evaluating for the Charity Navigator project is a Foundation. In regards to the foundation I evaluated, I was surpised at the lack of information I was able to find. At the end of my time exploring their website and answering the evaluation questions on CN, I was still unable to really see what the foundation does with all of their dollars. In light of this, I agree that foundations, just like program-oriented nonprofits should be held accountable for their work and for the processes involved in their work.
ReplyDeleteIt is obvious that Prewitt's question has intrigued a lot of disagreement among our classmates. And I also think that Prewitt didn't manage making a compelling argument. One of my reasons is that although those big funders can influence the decisions of the organizations they fund, many of the sucessful organizations have the ability to make a balance.
ReplyDeleteIt is just like what we have always talk about in the management of nonprofit organizations. The organizations who have survived and are prospering are organizations who are making a sucess in turning out revenue by developing programs on their own instead of totally relying on their funders. Since these are the organizations that are really making an impact on the society, I think it is not correct to say that the foundation sector is undemocratized.
The critique that foundations are undemocratic goes back to the source of their funds. The resources foundations have represent--to a large extent--income that has not been taxed by the federal government. Some argue that tax deductions are indirect subsidies to foundations and their grantees. The grants of private foundations are undemocratic because decisions about how to spend these indirect subsidies are made by foundation trustees--family members and friends of the donors or the donors themselves--not our elected representatives. In that way, the public has not say on the utilization of those subsidies.
ReplyDelete