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.

posted on: Monday, June 15, 2009

By Julia Craig

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

Myth #4: Criteria pushes for “racial quotas” in philanthropy.

In a March 3, 2009 Wall Street Journal article subtitled “Activists want to redistribute philanthropic wealth based on racial quotas,” Naomi Schaefer-Riley declared NCRP an enemy of philanthropy before having even read Criteria. Other critics were quick to follow, suggesting that NCRP was calling on grantmakers to appropriate their grants based on the race of the intended beneficiary.

Truth: As we state in Criteria, “By intentionally elevating vulnerable populations in their grantmaking, foundations benefit society and strengthen our democracy. Prioritizing marginalized communities brings about benefits for the public good.”

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.”

In other words, if grantmakers focus on the “general public” in their grantmaking and believe that the benefits will trickle down to those on the margins, they may have some impact. However, if grantmakers utilize targeted universalism, which provides a much deeper understanding of diversity to include other bases for marginalization than just race, they will more likely impact not only the targeted constituencies but the broader public.

Criterion I: Values states: A grantmaker practicing Philanthropy at Its Best serves the public good by contributing to a strong, participatory democracy that engages all communities.

• Provides at least 50 percent of its grant dollars to benefit lower-income communities, communities of color and other marginalized groups, broadly defined.
• Provides at least 25 percent of its grant dollars for advocacy, organizing and civic engagement to promote equity, opportunity and justice in our society.

It is the first benchmark in the chapter that has drawn the most ire from critics. This criterion is born of a belief that who benefits from philanthropy matters, and that foundations could be doing so much more to be inclusive in their grantmaking.

NCRP’s research found that just one in three grant dollars is intended to benefit disadvantaged communities. We made our definition as inclusive as possible given the data from the Foundation Center. In total, 11 groups comprised what we call marginalized communities in Criteria: economically disadvantaged; ethnic and racial minorities; women and girls; people with AIDS; people with disabilities; aging, elderly and senior citizens; immigrants and refugees; crime or abuse victims; offenders and ex-offenders; LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, questioning) and; single parents.

That so few philanthropic dollars are intended to benefit such a broad group of constituents has shocked some, and well it should. Philanthropy serves the public good by focusing on those with the least wealth, opportunity and power. Previous posts by Aaron Dorfman on Michael Eisner’s recent gift to the California Institute of the Arts, and by Yna Moore on women’s health demonstrate that such inclusive approach to grantmaking can be done across the various issues and causes that different foundations care about.

Given the growing income inequality in the U.S., the changing demographic landscape and the growing wealth disparity between whites and non-whites, there is so much that needs to be done. And we in philanthropy can do better. Criteria challenges grantmakers to think beyond linear problem-solving models and utilize systems thinking, which views causation as reciprocal, mutual and cumulative. NCRP’s exploration of targeted universalism and systems thinking provides grantmakers with tools to increase their impact on the complicated social problems they set out to address.

In addition to the 11 marginalized groups identified in Criteria, what are the others constituent communities that don’t see the benefits from philanthropy? Do you have a story to share of inclusive grantmaking at work?

posted on: Tuesday, June 09, 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.

In his preface to Criteria for Philanthropy at Its Best, NCRP Executive Director Aaron Dorfman argued:

There’s a popular but overused saying in philanthropic circles: “If you’ve seen one foundation, you’ve seen one foundation.” People use that phrase to emphasize how different each foundation is from the next. Anyone familiar with the sector knows that there is, indeed, great variability among grantmaking institutions. But many people also use the phrase to deflect criticism, arguing that the unique nature of each foundation makes it impossible to compare one foundation to another or to hold grantmakers to any standards more rigorous than those that are within bounds of the law.

Sure enough, when Criteria was released, critics trotted out a similar charge: the criteria are “one-size-fits-all.”

Steve Gunderson, President of the Council on Foundations, contended, “[W]e cannot endorse mandates, or imposed measures that seek to promote a one-size-fits-all approach.”

Adam Meyerson, President of the Philanthropy Roundtable, used the words as he attempted to provide examples of grants that wouldn’t fit NCRP’s supposedly “narrow” definition. Unfortunately, the examples actually work against him. Andrew Carnegie’s libraries and the schools that Meyerson mentions benefitted and benefit low-income people, one of the many marginalized groups mentioned in Criteria.

Sean Stannard-Stockton of Tactical Philanthropy characterized the criteria as both “deeply flawed” and “a fine set of recommendations” in the same paragraph before warning of “the sort of effectiveness where everyone marches in lockstep.”

There are several problems with this “one-size-fits-all” criticism.

First, Criteria includes exceptions for some foundations because NCRP respects the diversity of foundation missions and intent. For instance, if your mission makes it difficult to prioritize marginalized communities at the 50-percent level we established, a lower benchmark is proposed. The criteria can’t be one-size-fits-all if the benchmarks are offered in different sizes.

Second, Dorfman also wrote, “Ultimately, it's up to the leadership of each institution to decide how it's going to operate and whether or not it makes sense to meet or exceed the benchmarks for each criterion.” It isn’t “one-size-fits-all” to leave things up to the judgment and leadership of the nation’s foundation trustees.

Finally, there are already a number of “one-size-fits-all” approaches at work in philanthropy. Regulation, which NCRP isn’t calling for, is a one-size-fits-all approach. Codes of ethics are another. Critics, however, aren’t similarly opposed to the rules against self-dealing or principles in favor of having conflict-of-interest policies, which apply to all foundation leaders equally. If “one-size-fits-all”approaches were discounted outright, our sector would have no rules at all.

Critics charge that no single set of goals could possibly do justice to the diversity of aims, methods, and people involved in philanthropy.

But is this the right issue to raise? If we have to ask whether NCRP does justice to the diversity of aims, methods and people, we should also ask whether or not the diversity of aims, methods, and people in philanthropy does justice.

Does philanthropy contribute to leveling the playing field to maximize impact? In essence, does our being different make a positive difference?

In his essay “Let’s Stop the Craziness” published in the new book Wit and Wisdom: Unleashing the Philanthropic Imagination (Emerging Practitioners in Philanthropy, 2009), Emmett Carson, President and CEO of the Silicon Valley Community Foundation, notes that industry trade groups consistently paint the same picture:

The Foundation Center, one of our most respected institutions, continues to report that the amount of philanthropic capital distributed by foundations to communities of color and women is miniscule. The Council on Foundations, our major trade association, has consistently documented that foundations have not recruited trustees of color and that there are only a handful of CEOs and vice presidents of color serving our institutions.

Noticing a different kind of conformity, Lucy Bernholz, founder and President of Blueprint Research & Design, Inc. resurrected the term “institutional isomorphism” in a post last month. In short, as different as foundations may seem, they’re astonishingly similar. She writes:

Yes, I know the old trope, "You've seen one foundation and you've seen one foundation." That may be true at some level, but it is also true that if you've seen one foundation you've probably seen 1/3 - 1/4 of the prevalent models. The differences will all be in the trimmings, not in the underlying structures, norms, practices, or expectations.

Stannard-Stockton rightly worries about a sector in which foundations march in lock-step. Unfortunately, that’s the foundation world consistently encountered by grant-starved advocacy, organizing, and civic engagement groups serving marginalized communities.

And where the foundation world does succeed in diversity — grant application processes come to mind — that success often comes at the expense of nonprofits who must pay grant writers and fundraisers to navigate those resource-intensive, idiosyncratic processes.

If the foundation world is so diverse that no set of benchmarks could possibly have anything to say about them, then why do statistics regarding the communities and causes that benefit from foundation grantmaking, and data on board composition and general operating support remain largely unchanged despite years of debating these issues? And why do the disparities which foundations work to address continue to widen?

Could it have something to do with the fact that seemingly diverse foundation practices are not, in fact, making a substantive difference for growing numbers of people and the nonprofits that serve them? And couldn’t a well-crafted, well-researched set of recommendations for more responsive grantmaking, regardless of one’s preferred program goals and missions, be the very thing that in Stannard-Stockton’s words, “empower[s] each person to make their own choices in the most effective manner possible”?

Insisting on the foundation world’s diversity does not change the fact that the field appears to fail at being as responsive as it can and must be to meet the growing challenges of today. NCRP and all members of the philanthropic sector rightly want to pay appropriate attention to the diversity of donor goals, means, and practices, but we can also legitimately ask whether our great American philanthropic institutions are paying appropriate attention to the diverse and most pressing needs and communities foundation grants aim to benefit. To that end, Criteria for Philanthropy at Its Best offers an aspirational vision of a sector that can and must do more to remain relevant.

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

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).

posted on: Monday, May 11, 2009

by Yna C. Moore

I found some pretty sobering numbers on the CDC website:
- 14 percent of women aged 18 years or older are in fair or poor health
- 62 percent of women aged 20 years or older are overweight
- 33 percent of women aged 20 years or older have hypertension
- Heart Disease, diabetes and stroke are among the top causes of death among women, no matter the race.

Doctors and scientists in the biomedical sciences continue their untiring efforts to find the latest cures, technologies, procedures and preventative interventions for the numerous diseases that plague humanity. But no matter how breathtaking a discovery, there continues what seems to be a ginormous wall between science and the sick: that wall is called “access denied.” Sadly, systemic and institutional barriers continues to exist that prevent many from benefiting from the fruits of science. Critical drugs and medical procedures are available only for those who can afford the enormous cost. Many in need do not have health insurance, and even those that do cannot necessarily afford the co-insurance and other out-of-pocket expenses for specialized procedures, medications and other long-term care.

In a Reuters article yesterday, Julie Steenhuysen reported that “seven out of 10 women have no insurance, not enough insurance or are in debt because of medical bills.” She also noted a recent study by researchers from The Commonwealth Fund that found that women are hit harder by rising health costs because “they have lower average incomes and spend more on healthcare than men, and because they use the health system more often than men.”

A series of reports by NCRP titled Strengthening Democracy, Increasing Opportunities includes stories of how nonprofit community advocates and organizers are helping to tear down the wall. For example, in North Carolina, a number of local groups provide specialty services for the under- and uninsured, secure additional resources for HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment within the state, and create prescription drug assistance programs for lower-income senior citizens. In New Mexico, the study documented efforts to secure state and federal funding for Medicaid and beef up health services for Native Americans. These and other efforts were made possible by foundation grants, which provided the majority of funds for the work in these two sites.

As we mark National Women’s Health Week, we urge foundations to look at bold and innovative ways to help knock down the giant wall and in its place build a bridge between discovery and those who could benefit from the breakthroughs.

Yna C. Moore is communications director at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP).

posted on: Friday, April 24, 2009

When NCRP released Criteria for Philanthropy at its Best: Benchmarks to Assess and Enhance Grantmaker Impact, we knew we were embarking on something unprecedented. While many in our field have welcomed the call for a serious examination of philanthropy’s values and purpose, the reaction from opponents so far has been strong and at times vitriolic. Several staunch critics have perpetuated myths about Criteria and what NCRP wants to accomplish with it. Through a series on this blog, we hope to address these myths over the coming weeks.

Myth #1: Criteria is a call for mandated legislation of philanthropy

Truth: NCRP developed Criteria as a set of aspirational goals to guide grantmakers, facilitate discussions in the field, and increase philanthropic impact for the public good.

Following each of the four chapters, Criteria presents discussion questions to help foundation leaders start a dialogue about the role of a particular criterion within the foundation. For example, in Criterion I: Values, Criteria asks foundation leaders to consider their current giving to marginalized communities, broadly defined, and whether that level of giving is consistent with the foundation’s mission and goals. By reading Criteria and then engaging in self-reflection and serious discussion, a foundation can assess how well it is meeting its mission and learn about how to increase its impact on the issues important to our community.

For those who believe the goals are unrealistic or unattainable, the Data Appendix provides a list of field leaders for every measurable benchmark we propose. These foundations were practicing one or more aspects of Philanthropy at its Best before NCRP released the criteria because they found it to be the most effective, impactful way to accomplish their respective missions.

NCRP used Foundation Center data to develop the field leader lists. There are, undoubtedly, many other smaller foundations meeting or exceeding one or more benchmarks. The Foundation Center only gathers information from the largest grantmakers in the country – a total sample of about 1,340. This leaves out nearly 70,000 smaller foundations, some of whom are exemplary in their grantmaking practices. For example, The Needmor Fund, an Ohio family foundation that gives exclusively to community organizing groups, was not captured in Foundation Center data.

For the qualitative benchmarks, Criteria is full of stories from grantmakers who have solicited grantee feedback, engaged their grantees as partners, and taken other steps to mitigate the power differential between funder and grantee. For example, in the chapter on Ethics, which states that a grantmaker practicing Philanthropy at its Best discloses information freely, we noted how the San Francisco Foundation, makes demographic data on its staff and board publicly available as part of its core value of contextualized diversity. It also helps ensure that its grants go to diverse groups that reflect the communities being served. The foundation seeks grantees that share its values of inclusiveness and diversity, pursuing community-based solutions to intractable social and economic problems.

We hope that our community will continue to be challenged and inspired by our recommendations and examples in Criteria to think innovatively and boldly about how our sector can improve and be an effective part of the solution to the difficult issues our world faces everyday. Criteria provides a grounded point from which foundations can explore their own work and develop strategies to enhance their grantmaking practices.

posted on: Thursday, March 19, 2009

By Niki Jagpal

On the March 14 edition of Fox News Network’s The Journal Editorial Report hosted by Paul Gigot, three members of the Wall Street Journal’s editorial team discussed NCRP’s Criteria for Philanthropy at Its Best: Benchmarks to Assess and Enhance Grantmaker Impact. The Journal’s panel comprised columnist and deputy editor Dan Henninger, senior editorial writer Colin Levy and deputy Taste editor Naomi Schaefer Riley. Gigot asked Riley to explain how “foundations are being lobbied heavily to make some of their donations based on race, gender and sexual preference, a portion of it.” Riley’s response echoed her opinion piece published the day we released Criteria, a work that nobody - including she - had ever seen and issued numerous myths and falsehoods about as we released the book publicly. Riley responded to Gigot stating:

“Well, last week, a group called the National Committee for Responsibility came out with a report saying that these are the things they think foundations should do with their money. They should start giving 50 percent of it to marginalized groups. And you've just defined those for us. They should be giving 25 percent to organizing activities. And that they should also have diverse boards and staff, meaning that they hope that, you know, all these marginalized groups are represented on the board, and that those different groups basically spend their time on the boards arguing over where the money should go. Without regard, of course, to the intent of the donor, who gave the money in the first place.”

Reality check: Riley’s written piece made a similar argument, reducing our broad definition of special populations to “simplistic racial and gender headcounts.” In fact, her piece is titled “Philanthropy and Its Enemies: Activists want to redistribute foundation wealth based on racial quotas.” Far from this politicized opinion "piece,” Criteria: a) explicitly states that it’s a tool for meaningful funder self-regulation and assessment; b) doesn’t include a single mandate or legislative agenda; c) and doesn’t call for “racial quotas,” as she calls it.

In her opinion piece in the Journal, Riley raised the following questions:

“The idea, put forward in the report, that giving grants to ‘large cultural or educational institutions’ doesn't benefit minorities is offensive. Black people don't go to museums? Hispanics don't go to college?”

Reality check: First, no where in Criteria do we contend that the nation has made no progress in addressing racial inequality in our country. Was the nation’s first African American president not sitting in the Oval Office as we finalized Criteria? Second, of course non-white people in this country go to museums and college. But because her piece was written while we were releasing Criteria on March 3rd, she could only have seen a confidential draft summary that was somehow leaked to her, not even the actual Executive Summary of the full book. Anyone who reads the book would know that: a) the Values chapter explicitly addresses how whites comprise the largest number of those living in poverty; b) that we analyzed income and wealth inequality for ALL RACES over time in suggesting a socially inclusive poverty paradigm; and, c) that giving to any group that remains disadvantaged would be seen as grantmaking that benefits “marginalized groups, broadly defined.”

And contrary to Gigot and Riley’s reduction of our inclusive definition of vulnerable populations, we did not limit our analysis to “race, gender and sexual preference.” In fact, NCRP counted 11 different marginalized groups – cleverly disguised in the first endnote of the book and repeatedly listed out in the Values endnotes and data appendix. These groups go well-beyond base measures of race, gender or sexual orientation. The 11 groups that we analyzed include: economically disadvantaged; racial or ethnic minorities; women and girls; people with AIDS; people with disabilities; aging, elderly, and senior citizens; immigrants and refugees; crime/abuse victims; offenders and ex-offenders; single parents; and LGBTQ citizens.

Responding to Riley’s closing assertion about donor intent, Gigot agreed, stating:

“That's the thing. These foundations are created based on intent. Somebody says I want this money to go to, say, religion. I want this money to go to higher education. I want it to go to cancer research. All those things are very apolitical in the sense that they're not designed to go to any politically organized group. This is a way of politicizing charities, it seems.”

Riley agreed wholeheartedly:

“Absolutely. There are a number of large groups of that bought into this idea that with the goal of all charities is encouraging what the NCRP calls participatory democracy. It doesn't matter if your foundation is devoted to curing of cancer or higher education. What it should be devoted to is to the public good as we define it. We're getting these activist groups and a lot of legislators signing on to this idea this is the money should go.”

In her written piece, Riley similarly stated that “[NCRP’s] real aim is to push philanthropic organizations into ignoring donor intent and instead giving grants based on political considerations.”

Reality check: NCRP explicitly respects donor intent, acknowledging that certain trust restrictions might make it difficult for a particular foundation to meet a certain benchmark. On p. 24 of Criteria, we specifically note how donor intent might make meeting the benchmark we set for giving to vulnerable groups a challenge and we suggest a lower threshold for these donors to consider, and offer ways in which foundations might benefit from an approach called “targeted universalism” (see p. 16 for a definition). This is a strategic approach to universalist programs that focused on the most disadvantaged with benefits for all society. But it seems in Riley’s world, everything is apparently an either-or question.

In fact, it does matter if your foundation is devoted to either of the causes Riley mentions. Does curing cancer not benefit women, one of the 11 groups we included in our analysis? Does ensuring that all people have equal opportunities and access to higher education implicitly violate donor intent? Why is this seen as an inherent conflict? And NCRP again deviously states that everything we advocate for is intended to maximize the social benefit of philanthropy and augment impact – the ultimate measure of the civic sector.

Criteria challenges grantmakers to wrestle with difficult issues when making decisions about charitable giving priorities and recognizes that ultimately, its up to the leadership of these institutions to decide whether or not it makes sense to try and meet or exceed the metrics we suggest. And yet again, our activist political considerations are cloaked, e.g., in the Preface and in the speech our executive director gave at Criteria’s release. As the Preface so deviously states: “This particular document, however, is not a call for regulatory action on these issues. Instead, we view these criteria as central to informing meaningful self-regulation for foundations and other institutional grantmakers.”

And as for Riley’s false assertion that we are advocating “giving grants based on political considerations,” as we note on our page debunking the series of myths and mischaracterizations of our work, foundation leaders visit members of Congress annually during Foundations on the Hill, an event sponsored by the Council on Foundations and the Forum of Regional Associations of Grantmakers. Why should the grantee perspective on issues related to philanthropy be anathema to Riley unless she has her own political agenda that she wasn’t clear about. Of course, you’d have to visit her personal site to see the pieces come together: a) contributing writer at the American Enterprise Institute; b) contributing writer and editorial intern at the National Review; and, c) she has received grants from the Randolph Foundation among others. This last piece is particularly telling. Do you know who is the president and director of Randolph? None other than one Heather Higgins, also vice chairwoman of the Philanthropy Roundtable, who recently wrote an article for Forbes based on Riley’s opinion piece (both came out on the day we released Criteria, a nearly 130-page book.) But that’s another article altogether.

I’ll end this post by asking the questions I started out with: Who is philanthropy’s real "enemy"? Who hasn’t been transparent about their "political considerations"? Can anyone seriously consider the Journal’s deputy Taste editor’s critique of a work she hasn’t even read? And again, we slyly make our materials publicly available for free download on our site precisely to engage in constructive discussions and robust debates – that’s healthy and we encourage constructive criticism of our work. I invite you to read Criteria or at least the executive summary and join this discussion – I welcome all feedback, positive or negative. But to the likes of Riley and every conservative blogger who is repeating her falsehoods, I have no more comment.

Niki Jagpal is Research & Policy Director at NCRP, and primary author of Criteria for Philanthropy at Its Best: Benchmarks to Assess and Enhance Grantmaker Impact.

posted on: Friday, March 13, 2009

By Aaron Dorfman

The L.A. Times reported Monday that Michael Eisner made a $1.25 million gift to the California Institute of the Arts from his family foundation.

NCRP’s critics are likely expecting me to ask why in the world Mr. Eisner is supporting the arts when he should be supporting anti-poverty efforts.

But I’m not going to criticize his gift. In fact, I want to praise him for it. His gift is a perfect example of how foundations can simultaneously promote the causes they care about (in this case, the arts) and benefit marginalized communities.

The grant is for bringing arts instruction to Los Angeles schoolchildren, most of whom are from low-income families.

There’s no telling whether or not Mr. Eisner has seen NCRP’s latest report, but this is exactly the kind of creative thinking we hoped to inspire when we published our Criteria for Philanthropy at Its Best and called for foundations to dedicate at least 50 percent of their grant dollars for the intended benefit of economically and socially disadvantaged groups. If you’re an arts funder, we’re not saying you should start funding social services for the poor. We are saying you should look for ways to include underserved communities in your grantmaking, within the context of your mission.

You can read more about philanthropic support for vulnerable members of our society in Chapter 1 of Criteria, available for free at www.ncrp.org/paib.

Do you know of other arts-focused foundations that have used creative grantmaking to bring the arts to lower-income and other socially disadvantaged groups? Please share the story!