Counting What Counts
posted on: Thursday, June 18, 2009
By Kevin Laskowski
This post is the final post in a series that looks deeper into the myths surrounding Criteria for Philanthropy at Its Best. View previous posts in the series.
It’s unfortunate that critics would have you believe that the data and recommendations found in Criteria for Philanthropy at Its Best come entirely out of left field invented of whole cloth. The sad reality is that such visceral reactions are both predictable and understandable. It’s much easier to marginalize and dismiss a call to do more for those with the least wealth, access, and opportunity than it is to engage the substance of this work.
The full report is divided into four chapters, each covering a criterion and its corresponding benchmarks. The book’s 440 footnotes are a “who’s who” of philanthropic research and commentary. Critics may not agree with our conclusions, but attempts to paint the criteria as “arbitrary” or politically motivated simply ignore widespread, sector-wide calls for philanthropy to be more inclusive, effective, transparent, accountable, and responsive. Just ask the more than 140 sector leaders who have endorsed them so far.
NCRP has taken positions on many of the issues confronted in Criteria in the past. Criteria differs from previous efforts in that it draws lines in the sand, calling on grantmakers to do more for the nonprofits and communities they care about. To demonstrate that grantmakers can do more and that some foundations already have, we used a custom dataset from the Foundation Center. This dataset included detailed information on more than 1,200 of the largest foundations in the country, and their grants of $10,000 or more for 2004, 2005 and 2006. Data were consistently collected from our sample of 809. A full description of the methodology can be found in the Data Appendix.
NCRP then examined aggregate giving patterns and disaggregated data to determine aspirational but achievable goals. For example, given the case presented in favor of general operating support and in light of the available data, NCRP believes that grantmakers practicing Philanthropy at Its Best provide 50 percent of their grant dollars as general operating support (125 foundations met this benchmark).
Measuring giving to marginalized communities was a bit trickier. The Foundation Center tracks giving to “special population groups,” providing important insight into the compelling question of who benefits from philanthropic giving. Although some grants are designated as benefitting one or more of these groups by the foundations themselves and the Foundation Center, these are not double-counted. We identified 11 of these groups as “marginalized communities” and examined foundation giving so classified. We were disappointed to discover that only one in every three grant dollars in the sample were for the intended benefit of marginalized communities, broadly defined.
Noting the inequalities that can be unconsciously reinforced by philanthropic intervention and the importance of targeted universalist approaches, NCRP suggests grantmakers devote at least 50 percent of their grant dollars for the intended benefit of marginalized communities, broadly defined (108 foundations in the sample met this benchmark).
It’s important to note that this is giving that is intended to benefit marginalized groups. For instance, an environmental grantmaker might mark a grant preserving clean air and water for people in rural areas as benefitting economically disadvantaged people and single parents if they know the demographics of the areas in which they work. Or, an education funder might mark a scholarship program as helping racial and ethnic minorities because of the scholarship’s requirements.
It’s not about the cause or group funded but who ultimately benefits from the activity made possible by the foundation’s grants - and whether foundations are considering who benefits when they make their grants. Are foundations hoping the benefits they create will eventually reach those in need, or are they taking steps to make sure they do?
NCRP then listed those foundations that met the Criteria within the 809 foundations in the sample. That wasn’t to say that those who didn’t appear on those lists haven’t done wonderful things or that those who did appear on the lists cannot continue to improve. The lists are illustrative — that’s all.
If these exemplary foundations can do it, we ask, why can’t more grantmakers join them?
Kevin Laskowski is field associate at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy.Labels: Debunking Criteria Myths, Philanthropy at Its Best, targeted universalism
This post is the final post in a series that looks deeper into the myths surrounding Criteria for Philanthropy at Its Best. View previous posts in the series.
It’s unfortunate that critics would have you believe that the data and recommendations found in Criteria for Philanthropy at Its Best come entirely out of left field invented of whole cloth. The sad reality is that such visceral reactions are both predictable and understandable. It’s much easier to marginalize and dismiss a call to do more for those with the least wealth, access, and opportunity than it is to engage the substance of this work.
The full report is divided into four chapters, each covering a criterion and its corresponding benchmarks. The book’s 440 footnotes are a “who’s who” of philanthropic research and commentary. Critics may not agree with our conclusions, but attempts to paint the criteria as “arbitrary” or politically motivated simply ignore widespread, sector-wide calls for philanthropy to be more inclusive, effective, transparent, accountable, and responsive. Just ask the more than 140 sector leaders who have endorsed them so far.
NCRP has taken positions on many of the issues confronted in Criteria in the past. Criteria differs from previous efforts in that it draws lines in the sand, calling on grantmakers to do more for the nonprofits and communities they care about. To demonstrate that grantmakers can do more and that some foundations already have, we used a custom dataset from the Foundation Center. This dataset included detailed information on more than 1,200 of the largest foundations in the country, and their grants of $10,000 or more for 2004, 2005 and 2006. Data were consistently collected from our sample of 809. A full description of the methodology can be found in the Data Appendix.
NCRP then examined aggregate giving patterns and disaggregated data to determine aspirational but achievable goals. For example, given the case presented in favor of general operating support and in light of the available data, NCRP believes that grantmakers practicing Philanthropy at Its Best provide 50 percent of their grant dollars as general operating support (125 foundations met this benchmark).
Measuring giving to marginalized communities was a bit trickier. The Foundation Center tracks giving to “special population groups,” providing important insight into the compelling question of who benefits from philanthropic giving. Although some grants are designated as benefitting one or more of these groups by the foundations themselves and the Foundation Center, these are not double-counted. We identified 11 of these groups as “marginalized communities” and examined foundation giving so classified. We were disappointed to discover that only one in every three grant dollars in the sample were for the intended benefit of marginalized communities, broadly defined.
Noting the inequalities that can be unconsciously reinforced by philanthropic intervention and the importance of targeted universalist approaches, NCRP suggests grantmakers devote at least 50 percent of their grant dollars for the intended benefit of marginalized communities, broadly defined (108 foundations in the sample met this benchmark).
It’s important to note that this is giving that is intended to benefit marginalized groups. For instance, an environmental grantmaker might mark a grant preserving clean air and water for people in rural areas as benefitting economically disadvantaged people and single parents if they know the demographics of the areas in which they work. Or, an education funder might mark a scholarship program as helping racial and ethnic minorities because of the scholarship’s requirements.
It’s not about the cause or group funded but who ultimately benefits from the activity made possible by the foundation’s grants - and whether foundations are considering who benefits when they make their grants. Are foundations hoping the benefits they create will eventually reach those in need, or are they taking steps to make sure they do?
NCRP then listed those foundations that met the Criteria within the 809 foundations in the sample. That wasn’t to say that those who didn’t appear on those lists haven’t done wonderful things or that those who did appear on the lists cannot continue to improve. The lists are illustrative — that’s all.
If these exemplary foundations can do it, we ask, why can’t more grantmakers join them?
Kevin Laskowski is field associate at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy.
Labels: Debunking Criteria Myths, Philanthropy at Its Best, targeted universalism
posted by Kevin Laskowski at
1:15 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Blog Home