posted on: Friday, June 05, 2009

By Kevin Laskowski

This post is part of a series that takes a deeper look at the myths surrounding Criteria for Philanthropy at Its Best. View other posts in the series.

You don’t have to give up your commitment to a cause or community to follow NCRP’s Criteria for Philanthropy at Its Best. On the contrary, pursuing the Criteria’s benchmarks increases your chances of being more effective.

Criteria was not designed to undermine donor intent but to minimize the harmful unintended consequences of thousands of grantmakers pursuing their private visions of the public good. Currently, donors are free to pursue their unique visions of the public good and enshrine their values in trusts and foundations. That’s largely a good thing, but NCRP and others have noted the problems that can arise.

For instance, the desire of large foundations to be more strategic has led to the funding of program grants and a proliferation of reporting requirements. There’s nothing wrong with these things in and of themselves. Such things can aid effectiveness and accountability. The problems arise when nonprofits confront an array of idiosyncratic requirements that result in sector-wide duplicated and wasted efforts for grants that leave them cash-poor when rent and payroll are due. It’s for these reasons, among others, that Criteria encourages reporting requirements commensurate with grant size and multi-year and general operating support grants.

Furthermore, despite foundations engaging in activities that conceivably benefit everyone, we find that marginalized groups - low-income persons, racial and ethnic minorities, women and girls, people with HIV/AIDS, people with disabilities, senior citizens, immigrants and refugees, victims of crime and abuse, offenders and ex-offenders, single parents, and LGBTQ citizens - are consistently left behind in philanthropy. In fact, only 1 in 3 grant dollars are intended for the benefit of these communities. Even as we spend millions to improve health care and outcomes for children and families in this country, Native American women experience infant mortality rates 20 percent higher than those of other races in the U.S., and children of color living in just 10 New York neighborhoods experience 90 percent of all lead poisoning in the city. These are just a sample of the statistics the report cites in its review of how inequity affects philanthropic activity. Disparities of all kinds are widening, and the refusal to pay attention to them limits foundation effectiveness.

That’s why Criteria suggests that at least 50 percent of a foundation’s grant dollars benefit marginalized communities. If you’re concerned about health, education, the environment, or the arts, it would be wise to be aware that different communities tend to benefit disproportionately from the fruits of philanthropy. Social disparities tend to reproduce themselves in philanthropic programming. NCRP does not suggest that you should stop caring about, say, neuroscience or classical music. We simply suggest that we in the sector consider how to broaden the beneficiaries of our grantmaking. Let’s ask ourselves: "Whatever public benefit I hope to create, how can I ensure that those on the margins are not left out?"

If you’re an arts funder, you might ask how low-income people or those with disabilities get access to the concerts, exhibits, or shows you help create. If you’re an education funder, you might ask about the racial diversity of the schools that receive your funds to guarantee that you are making opportunities available to all who want to succeed. If you fund the environment, you might ask if everyone’s air, soil, and water are clean. You might be surprised to find that low-income people and minorities bear the brunt of pollution and impacts of climate change.

Think of it this way: if you fund the core institutions of a community, those on the periphery may benefit, but if you make sure the benefit reaches the periphery, the condition of everyone in the community is improved.

It’s about impact — as Peter and Jennifer Buffett's recent announcement to "empower women and girls worldwide" demonstrates:

'The Buffetts say they believe focusing on helping women and girls seems like the way to make the greatest difference in the world.

"It just was logical for us after we really thought about it," Jennifer Buffett said. "If you empower adolescent girls who are the mother of every child yet to be born - if they have more resources, better health, more empowerment, more of a role in their communities, decision making, they can delay marriage and become better educated - they have so much more to offer their sons, their daughters in that next generation."'

As the Buffetts seem to believe, when grants are targeted based on these systemic issues — in their case, the role women can and do play in their communities — the benefits can bubble up and out for generations to come.

As Janine Lee, CEO of the Southern Partners Fund, wrote in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “We shouldn’t invest in marginalized communities because it’s politically correct or because public subsidies obligate us to do so. We should invest in disadvantaged communities because it has the greatest impact on the things we care about.”

Critics like to pretend that donor intent is at odds with Criteria. On the contrary, they’re among a donor’s best shots at ensuring that their good intentions will lead to real improvements for the causes and communities we all care about.

Kevin Laskowski is field associate at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP).