|
||
NCRP at its Most Presumptuous
Earlier this week, The National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP) published a paper entitled Criteria for Philanthropy at its Best®: Benchmarks to Assess and Enhance Grantmaking Impact. NCRP starts from the premises, which I share, that philanthropy is seriously underperforming in achieving "social benefit or impact" and in helping "solve the most urgent problems facing our nation and the world," and that disparities of opportunity, wealth, and power, especially when systematically coupled with race and other personal characteristics, are high among these problems.
From these premises NCRP derives prescriptions for both the proper ends and the proper means of philanthropy. With respect to ends, NCRP asserts that no foundation can have as important a goal--whether it be curing cancer or mitigating climate change--than addressing the plight of marginalized communities. Therefore, at least 50 percent of any foundation's grants must be devoted to this cause.
As for means: "it is almost impossible ... to examine each of the nation's more than 70,000 grantmaking institutions and determine the extent to which that foundation is enhancing the public good, creating positive social benefits or advancing the public interest." In an effort to impose a common metric, NCRP would require that 50 percent of a foundation's grants be spent on general operating support and 25 percent be devoted to advocacy. It also sets some requirements for foundation governance and accountability.
Even for someone who shares NCRP's concerns about marginalized communities, its hierarchy of ends is breathtakingly arrogant. Its prescriptions of means are more of a mixed bag. Many of the 70,000 foundations in the United States might actually contribute more to society if they followed some of the Criteria. But the tremendous social good done by others would be severely compromised. In aiming for the lowest common denominator, NCRP pushes the entire sector toward mediocrity.
NCRP has issued the Criteria at a time when philanthropy is highly concerned about social impact, good practices, and evaluation. Many of the issues NCRP discusses--such as forms of funding, payout, and mission investments--are the subjects of vibrant ongoing discussions in the sector. Surprisingly, the Criteria don't recognize that foundations' approaches to these matters ultimately depend on their particular missions and strategies.
If NCRP's main purpose were to present its strong opinions for the benefit of foundations and other practitioners, the Criteria would be a valuable contribution to the debate. NCRP makes the most comprehensive case I've seen for what might be called "progressive" or "social justice" philanthropy. Although it presents a tendentious one-sided brief for one position rather than a balanced set of arguments, that's the nature of debates.
Rather than participate in the debate, however, NCRP seeks to control it. By trademarking the unremarkable phrase "Philanthropy at its Best," the organization apparently aspires to create a philanthropic version of the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval. But while NCRP disclaims any "call for regulatory action," the introduction to its Criteria states that policymakers "will find the benchmarks ... informative when considering issues related to philanthropy." The version that NCRP sent around for prepublication endorsements was more direct: "Policymakers may find the criteria valuable when considering regulations or legislation that affect institutional grantmakers." For anyone who has experienced the Greenlining Institute's efforts to legislate social justice philanthropy in California and watched its efforts in other states, this lets the cat out of the bag. NCRP has just concealed Greenlining's fist in a velveteen glove.
Although I would oppose legislative enactment of the Criteria, NCRP's earnest contribution to the discussion of these issues deserves an item-by-item response, and that's what I shall try to do in the posts that follow.
Before signing off, though, I should note that though we often disagree with its positions, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation has provided NCRP with general operating support as part of our grantmaking for the infrastructure of the philanthropic sector. Ironically, this grant would not count as Philanthropy at its Best®, since NCRP is not a disadvantaged community. It is just a minor sign of NCRP's tunnel vision that, while issuing rules for the proper practice of philanthropy, it ignores the value of grants whose purpose is to help the field become more effective.
Moreover, the Hewlett Foundation actually follows many of the precepts articulated in the Criteria for Philanthropy at its Best. Much of our grantmaking focuses on disadvantaged communities, not just in the US but also in developing countries--whose billions of impoverished citizens NCRP largely ignores, notwithstanding its throwaway statement that philanthropy should help solve urgent problems worldwide. And the Foundation pursues its goals through advocacy with ample amounts of general operating support.
But that's not the point. Rather, the point is that many foundations whose goals and methods differ from Hewlett's provide no less value to society. Indeed, it is differences among the missions and practices of foundations and the diverse nonprofit organizations they support, that give the US the most vibrant civil society of any country in the world.
So much for generalizations. Next week, on to NCRP's specific recommendations about governance, some of which are pretty unobjectionable.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
The comments deserve as much attention as Paul Brest's post.
To Aaron Dorfman's shock that anyone could have seen this document as more than a benign suggestion, one only has to point to NCRP's decision to bring Cong. Becerra to the unveiling. You don't argue private money is now public domain without seeking to implement the corollary claims of public accountability and control.
To Niki Jagpal's comments, NCRP respects donor intent and abjures "one-size-fits-all" approaches only to the extent foundations redefine intent to make grants of which NCRP approves. Now that's a truly "insular worldview".
To Trista Harris, who almost certainly doesn't think her philanthropy is based on "whims", and who doesn't think foundations being pushed to give "a mere half" of their resources to what most interests her is anything but laudable, one can only ponder her response were a watchdog group preoccupied with global warming or relief for those without decent water and food internationally to demand that all foundations give half their resources to "international relief" to "meet the promise of our collective potential" to "meet society's greatest challenges".
There is not only the arrogant self-assurance of beneficent intentions in these justifications, but more disturbing is NCRP's willingness to upend what words mean and redefine them, whether donor intent, ethics, efficacy, or most particularly "best" philanthropy. For those who want more detail, see http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/03/ncrp-criteria-foundation-opinions-contributors_threatens_philanthropy.html.
Heather Higgins
President
Randolph Foundation
I want to thank Paul Brest for engaging in this debate by writing such an articulate, thoughtful piece regarding the NCRP's recent release.
It is alarming to me that there are still those in the community, such as NCRP, who are intent on forcing the hands of donors. By specifying that 50 percent of grant dollars are to go to "marginalized" communities, the criteria essentially tell donors exactly what to do with half of their funding - nevermind whether or not that matches with their charitable goals and missions.
The criteria, as they are laid out, demonstrate a complete disregard for philanthropic freedom - the same freedom that has created a sector booming with innovative and stimulative ideas. The strength of the foundation sector is in its diversity of mission and diversity of giving. Whether it is National Public Radio or Race for the Cure or the Sierra Club, foundations operate best when they can choose where to play a critical role in our communities.
I applaud the NCRP for its attempt to engage in a very timely debate on how best to measure foundation and grantmaker effectiveness; however, these criteria clearly miss the mark.
William E. Simon, Jr.
Co-Chairman
William E. Simon Foundation
Paul Brest puts it well – the NCRP’s “hierarchy of ends is breathtakingly arrogant.” Despite the claims by NCRP, here and elsewhere, that they’re not “imposing” anything, that’s one very possible outcome, unless leaders in philanthropy and the nonprofit community speak out against this document and its potential to stifle true diversity – of ideas, of missions, of ways of doing good in the public sphere.
Three months ago activists in California orchestrated a “shakedown,” as the WSJ called it (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123060161738741415.html), of foundations there. These activitists used the threat of legislated racial quotas to extract $30M in grant promises. The head of Greenlining, the group behind this, called it only “a good start,” while NCRP’s Aaron Dorfman praised it as “a good solution,” and added ominously, “Lesson to elected officials and nonprofits: on matters of advancing equity and opportunity in underserved communities, keep pushing organized philanthropy to do more. It works.” (See http://www.diversityinphilanthropy.com/voices/clegislation/commentaries.php#link6)
What can it possibly mean for “elected officials” to “keep pushing” foundations, other than for them to legislate NCRP’s prescriptions – or use the threat to achieve the same ends? How can this possibly respect the diversity of choices foundations make about how to achieve their mission, honor their donor's intent, and serve the public good?
I hope others join Paul Brest in raising these concerns. (He, by the way, literally wrote the book on “smart philanthropy,” www.smartphilanthropy.org.)
I support Paul’s response to the NCRP report. Those who establish foundations do so because they believe passionately in the issues they seek to address with the resources they have worked hard to acquire. They have feely chosen to share their wealth in ways they believe will benefit society. The NCRP attempts to condemn them as unworthy of serving the public good because they give generously to causes that may not meet the criteria NCRP deems appropriate. To prescribe where charitable dollars must go and threaten to legislate who can make these decisions is irresponsible. Mr. Dorfman’s comments are evidence of NCRP’s judgment that all grants must meet their criteria. They are entitled to their views but who gives them the right to pass judgment on others? Does not a grant that supports clean air and water benefit all people, regardless of whether they are marginalized? What’s wrong with a grant that helps everyone? The Meadows Foundation was established to serve the people of Texas. We make grants based on need, not percentages. Those we have funded and the foundation partners we have worked with have all done their best to do what is right, honest and just for those we serve. Thanks to Paul for setting the record straight!
Linda Perryman Evans
The Meadows Foundation
I’d say that NCRP is in ‘heated agreement’ with you in many ways, Paul. We clearly share the goals of improving lives of vulnerable populations and of helping philanthropy do more to address the most pressing needs of the world.
It seems, however, that you’ve entirely misunderstood the intent of our Criteria. We explicitly state that we’re not calling for any mandates. We’re not imposing some “one-size-fits-all” set of “standards” on philanthropy, but we are making a well-argued, compelling case for more responsive, inclusive grantmaking. We’re including policymakers in the process not to provoke regulation but because they help get the attention of grantmakers who are all too often impervious to the nonprofit voice and to the needs of disadvantaged communities.
As we say in the book, this isn’t a ranking system and it shouldn’t be seen as such. NCRP doesn’t determine what “counts”. If a foundation supports climate change, cancer research or the arts in ways that benefit marginalized communities, those grants certainly should “count” whether or not they are actually coded that way by the Foundation Center. We’re calling on the leaders of our nation’s grantmaking institutions to make that determination for themselves after serious internal debate. That’s why we included the discussion questions at the end of each chapter.
We look forward to engaging with foundations in important discussions about these issues and encourage them to keep an open mind until they actually read the criteria for themselves.
Aaron Dorfman
Executive Director, NCRP
Bravo, Paul. What gets trampled in the NCRP's one-size-fits-all definition of acceptable philanthropy is the notion of donor intent. The arrogance of NCRP's criteria is to suggest that a panel of truth-keepers can tell people where to give their money. Heaven forbid those selfish philanthropists should be allowed to donate willy-nilly to the causes they personally believe in.
But here's the rub: If donors are forced to conform to someone else's idea of where their money should go, they won't give. And why should they? Tax policy is only part of the incentive for giving in America; the opportunity to give to causes we personally believe in is the other. The richness and diversity of America's philanthropic sector, which is admittedly messy and sometimes underachieving but also a powerful engine of change in communities like mine, is an expression of vitality, not weakness.
I share NCRP's concern for marginalized communities and devotion to operating support. But good philanthropy is not based on rigid, simplistic formulas. And ironically, the formula they suggest is likely to result in fewer, not more, resources for those laudable ends. The best way to kill America's philanthropic golden goose is to keep shackling it with expectations that may suit those who want to receive more of the money but will drive away those who are in a position to give it.
Grant Oliphant
President & CEO
The Pittsburgh Foundation
NCRP’s Criteria doesn’t provide a ‘one-size-fits all definition of acceptable philanthropy.’ Quite the opposite; anyone who actually reads it would know. It’s about NCRP’s values -- values that many grantmakers already share – and provides a tool for meaningful self-assessment that some foundations already find valuable in trying to solve our most challenging problems.
Regarding donor intent, readers would know that NCRP explicitly acknowledges this might make meeting some of the criteria challenging. Ergo, we suggest, e.g., a lower threshold for foundations that don’t have an explicit vision of focusing on marginalized communities. NCRP asks: do today’s foundation leaders have any responsibility whatsoever within their donors’ intent to ensure that marginalized communities also benefit?
Criteria isn’t a set of ‘rigid, simplistic formulas’ – any reader would see the thoughtful analyses that support each case. Preemptive dismissal based on third-party opinions isn’t fair, and doesn’t acknowledge the heterogeneity of the entire civic sector, not just the philanthropic side.
Criteria is a challenge for exemplary philanthropy, not ‘good philanthropy.’ Our goal is to participate actively and provide meaningful tools that push foundations to think beyond their often insular worldviews. As the fracas in the wake of its release demonstrates, some funders will simply dismiss the perspective of the very people on whom they rely to maintain their tax-exempt status, averring any opportunity for meaningful engagement and thoughtful self-reflection at this critical time.
Niki Jagpal,
Research & Policy Director, NCRP
As an endorser of NCRP’s criteria, I respectfully and vehemently disagree with your position that NCRP’s guidelines are creating the lowest common denominator in philanthropy and would push the field toward mediocrity. The NCRP criteria give foundations, even well respected foundations that are heralded for their social benefit, a high bar to try to reach across the spectrum of foundation operations.
Encouraging foundations to commit a mere half of their resources to marginalized communities is not “progressive” philanthropy, it is just good policy. Even the areas that you cited in your article, cancer and climate change, have disproportionate impacts on marginalized communities. By asking foundations to address those disproportionate impacts, you are ensuring that foundation dollars are having a multiplier effect in our community, thus increasing foundation’s societal benefit.
NCRP’s call for general operating support ensures foundations are not weakening the nonprofit sector by encouraging the hoop jumping and mission creep that abounds in the sector to meet foundation’s project-based whims. General operating support gives nonprofits the nimbleness needed to meet society’s greatest challenges.
I commend the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy for starting an important dialogue and for asking foundations to meet the promise of our collective potential.
Trista Harris
Executive Director
Headwaters Foundation
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
