In March 2009, the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy ("NCRP"), an independent watchdog of foundations and institutional grantmakers, released the Criteria for Philanthropy at Its Best: Benchmarks to Assess and Enhance Grantmaker Impact. NCRP claims that the Criteria is "the first ever set of measurable guidelines that will help foundations and other institutional grantmakers operate ethically and maximize the impact of their dollars." The criteria focus on values, effectiveness, ethics, and commitment, along with the concept that foundation dollars should be viewed as "partially public" dollars (because of the charitable deduction taken by donors and tax-exemption of the foundation).
The first and most controversial criterion is values:
A grantmaker practicing Philanthropy at Its Best serves the public good by contributing to a strong, participatory democracy that engages all communities.
a) Provides at least 50 percent of its grant dollars to benefit lower-income communities, communities of color and other marginalized groups, broadly defined
b) Provides at least 25 percent of its grant dollars for advocacy, organizing and civic engagement to promote equity, opportunity and justice in our society.
Here is part of NCRP's argument for inclusion of the first criterion:
Philanthropic support for people and communities that historically have been marginalized is extremely low. Although serving disadvantaged communities is not the only purpose of philanthropy, it should be a much higher priority than it is. In the aggregate, only 33 percent of grant dollars can be classified as benefiting marginalized communities, even though broadly defined. This is cause for concern in spite of the fact that philanthropy and the charitable sector are not a substitute for public programs; the government has an obligation to assist the country's underserved populations.
By intentionally elevating vulnerable populations in their grantmaking, foundations benefit society and strengthen our democracy. Prioritizing marginalized communities brings about positive benefits for the public good. "Targeted universalism" is one of the most effective strategies for doing this.
Income and wealth inequality impact the entire U.S. economy negatively. Grantmakers that pursue social inclusion for the economically disadvantaged help not only the poor, but broader society as well. Race persists as a significant barrier to social inclusion and to achieving the American Dream. Grantmakers that prioritize racial and ethnic minorities see benefits accrue to people of all races.
Critics of the controversial criterion often point to examples of widely-valued charities that would not be included as recipients of grants meeting the criterion. For example, Heather Higgins, Vice Chairman of the Philanthropy Roundtable, identifies the Susan B. Komen Foundation, which focuses its mission on breast cancer, as one that did not qualify. Chris Graham of the Alliance for Charitable Reform similarly cites St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, National Public Radio, and Make-A-Wish Foundation. Steve Gunderson, President of Council on Foundations, states that because the Council supports the diversity of philanthropy, "we cannot endorse mandates, or imposed measures that seek to promote a one-size-fits-all approach." About the Criteria, Gunderson states: "we reject the use of a single template to promote effective philanthropy." Paul Brest, President of The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, makes perhaps the most comprehensive argument against the Criteriaon in an entry on Huffington Post available here.
Continue reading "NCRP Criteria for Philanthropy at Its Best" »
