Group Faulted for Its Low Percentage of Aid to Poor : Charity: But the head of the foundation disputes watchdog agency’s findings. Donors determine where most funds are spent, he said.

A Washington-based watchdog group has charged that the California Community Foundation has failed to address the needs of the disadvantaged in the Los Angeles area and that its grants only benefit the needy “willy-nilly, not as part of any deliberate plan.”

In a report released Monday, the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy faulted the foundation, the largest community foundation in Southern California, for what it termed a low percentage of grants made to the poor, disabled, victims of discrimination and minorities.

The group noted that only 22% of the foundation’s $9.3 million in grants during 1989 went to the disadvantaged. “They should be devoting a significant effort to dealing with the problems of those with the greatest need,” said Robert O. Bothwell, the National Committee’s executive director.

But California Community Foundation President Jack Shakely disputed the report’s findings. “We do have a focus--improving the conditions of Southern California,” he said. The foundation donates money to a variety of causes related to the arts, health, education, the environment, human services and community development.

“The foundation has worked hard to reach the disadvantaged community,” Shakely said. “Of our discretionary grants--those grants the staff and board have control over--75% went to the disadvantaged.”

The statistical conflict stems from the nature of community foundations, of which there are about 300 nationwide. Unlike private foundations, community foundations take donations from a variety of individuals or sources and then disburse the money through grants.

Donors can recommend how they want the money used, and foundation boards actually only choose the recipients of the “discretionary” or unrestricted donations.

So Bothwell and Shakely were both correct, since 75% of the California Commmunity Foundation’s discretionary grants in 1989 went to the disadvantaged but consisted of only 22% of the total foundation outlay that year.

Shakely said foundation officials “don’t have a lot of choice” over the restricted donations.

But Bothwell said that’s not good enough. “What they are doing is perfectly legal,” he said. “We’re saying (that) given the issues of poverty, racism, sexism and disability are so critical, a foundation like that should be focusing half its resources there. If they don’t take the lead, who is going to?”

The California Community Foundation, which started in 1915, has an endowment of more than $100 million, Shakely said. In 1989, the foundation distributed its largest percentage of its 791 grants to the health field, followed by the arts.

One of its recipients, in fact, is the National Committee, which has received $3,000 annual grants for several years. The 15-year-old committee studies corporate and philanthropic giving, and helps found organizations seeking to set up alternative funds to United Way.

On the positive side, the report pointed out that the foundation holds seminars and opens its library for grant-seekers, who are often grass-roots organizations helping the needy.