posted on: Monday, March 22, 2010

By: Christine Reeves

Barring a lucky night in Las Vegas, or an investment in some overnight-miracle stock, could you turn $1 into $157? Of course you could. It only requires the logic to support nonprofit advocacy and organizing. As evidenced by the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy’s research, this is precisely how a sample of New Mexico nonprofits earned an astronomical 157 percent return for their communities. Subsequently, NCRP revealed that North Carolina, Minnesota, and Los Angeles nonprofits’ advocacy and organizing yielded a striking 89 percent, 138 percent, and 91 percent return on investment, respectively. I challenge even the luckiest poker player or veteran day trader to duplicate and sustain that kind of success. So, nonprofits know what works—advocacy. Now, they need what advocacy requires—more initial funding. Enter philanthropy…

Last week, the National Community Reinvestment Coalition held its 20th Annual Conference in Washington, D.C. NCRC is an association of over 600 community-based organizations that help people acquire the basic needs of fair banking services, job development and affordable housing. This year, the bank bailouts, job market freefall and housing calamity fueled the discussion and dismay of the conference attendees. The trio of catastrophes also reinforced the nonprofit participants’ commitment to seek funding for advocacy and organizing.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, “Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate” once again emerged with a dubious distinction: the industry with the greatest annual lobbying expenditure. They spent a massive $3.92 billion to ensure their own protection. Imagine what $3.92 billion—or even $3.92 million—could do for so many of their clients, who lost their savings, homes, health insurance, livelihoods and abilities to afford both prescription medications and adequate food and shelter for their families.

Corporations know public policy can be a zero-sum game: when one group gains, another loses. Yet, even though corporations are winning this game right now, they don’t have a monopoly on it. Everyone can advocate and organize for their rights. However, unemployed, underemployed, indebted, and foreclosed upon victims of corporate greed cannot spare a $3.92 billion megaphone to voice their concerns. Therefore, these Americans rely on sage nonprofit professionals, who encourage policymakers to value the struggles of hard-working Americans over the influence of corporations—an uphill challenge made even harder in wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision.

This is where philanthropy must heed the call and help level the precipitous playing field. Grantmakers’ funding catalyzes 157 percent returns on investments for communities in need. Plus, supporting nonprofit advocacy and organizing aligns with grantmakers’ collective goal: spread and sustain positive change.

At the end of the day, the law of averages will always stipulate that risk comes with every grant project; some succeed, some fail, and most fall somewhere in the middle. However, funding strong grant proposals that include advocacy and organizing mitigate the risk of failure. I supposed the title of this blog is misleading: Luck isn’t an advocate; it’s what grantmakers need when they don’t invest in an advocate.

Christine Reeves is field assistant at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP).

Photo credit: Graur Razvan/graur_razvan_ionut/Freedigitalphotos.net

posted on: Friday, March 05, 2010

By Kevin Laskowski

A gathering of more than 100 leaders in philanthropy marked the release of NCRP’s new Strengthening Democracy, Increasing Opportunities: Impacts of Advocacy, Organizing and Civic Engagement in Los Angeles County. The report documented how 15 Los Angeles-area nonprofit organizations and their allies leveraged foundation grants to secure $6.88 billion in public benefits—nearly $91 of impact for every dollar invested.

In addition to the dramatic findings of the report, participants heard from several Los Angeles grantmakers and nonprofit leaders about their experience with these strategies.

A self-described “convert” to advocacy, organizing and civic engagement strategies, Dr. Robert Ross, president of The California Endowment, discussed how the Endowment’s approach hopes to connect “grassroots and treetops,” combining capital for service provision with the resources for systemic change.

“Let’s be real,” Ross told participants. “With the possible exception of public safety, our opportunity systems are broken. Every time Sacramento or Washington don’t do their jobs, our jobs get harder.”

He acknowledged the limited resources of foundations and the difficult choices that they face in these economic times.

“Every choice we face is a Sophie’s choice,” he said. “It’s tough.”

He urged participants to “lead with results” in making the case for funding advocacy and organizing and applauded NCRP for giving grantmakers another tool to get the biggest bang for their philanthropic buck. He pointed to the importance of the popular mantra “change not charity,” also the tagline for the Liberty Hill Foundation, a noted Los Angeles-area social justice funder.

“I wish I could give you a grant big enough to steal that line,” he said, nodding to Liberty Hill staff in the audience. “Charity is good but change is better.”

Antonia Hernandez, president of the California Community Foundation, noted that her own journey in these strategies was a bit different. The former executive director of MALDEF, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Hernandez is no recent convert to the importance of funding strategies that effect change.

She explained how important it was to discuss the difficult choices grantmakers face with trustees and educate others about all the options available.

As Los Angeles faced the loss of millions in Section 8 housing vouchers, the board of the community foundation could attempt to devote philanthropic resources to make up the difference.

“Or, for a $50,000 grant, we can fund an advocate to Washington,” she said.

In the same way that nonprofits use litigation, advocacy, organizing, and other strategies, Hernandez said foundations bring the limited resources they’re given to bear on the serious challenges facing Los Angeles and the country as a whole.

Is your foundation interested in learning more about how to effectively support nonprofit advocacy and community organizing? Is your community organization interested in learning more about making the case for advocacy, organizing, or civic engagement? Contact us today!

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

posted on: Wednesday, February 10, 2010

“I have always depended on the kindness of strangers.”

- Blanche DuBoise, A Streetcar Named Desire




Photo by: Francesco Marino/freedigitalphotos.net

Playwright Tennessee Williams’ famous line also holds true on the philanthropic stage. After all, where can strangers offer more kindness than in philanthropy—where grantmakers and nonprofit leaders depend on each other—and where so many people in need depend on the grantmaker-nonprofit partnership?

Last week, Arabella Advisers, the Washington Regional Association of Grantmakers (WRAG), and PNC co-hosted a panel discussion on bolstering the impact of philanthropy. The animated discussion focused on two reports: Arabella Adviser’s High-Impact Giving Opportunities: Philanthropy That Makes a Difference and WRAG’s Beyond Dollars Investing in Big Change: How Washington Area Grantmakers are Creating Lasting Impact. Although Arabella and WRAG each published independently and included different case studies, when I read the reports in sequence, I thought they equipped grantmakers with clearer advice. Overall, I viewed the strategies WRAG identified (timing and momentum, a strong voice, leveraging resources, and true partnerships) as four tools necessary for approaching any philanthropic initiative. Then, Arabella’s report suggested four philanthropic initiatives (policy advocacy, broad alliances, mission investment, and public-private partnerships) that I thought grantmakers could better pursue with the tools from WRAG’s report.

The reports shared similar messages, but the most prominent common denominator was a simple concept: partnerships. However, don’t let the simplicity detract from its significance; partnerships should be the foundation to any grantmaking strategy. Grantmaking suffocates in silos, especially in a vastly interconnected world that reaps tremendous rewards from partnerships between grantmakers and nonprofits, as well as governments, businesses, and people in need.

Partnership Benefits:
Both reports and the panelists championed the importance of partnerships, but more can be said on the topic. Foundations benefit from partnerships during every stage of the grantmaking process.

While researching a new grant opportunity, for example, partners increase the knowledge base. Think tank scholars, professors, reporters, practitioners, retired experts, and counterparts at other organizations all hold fortunes of insights and information, and they are only conversations away. Before making a funding commitment, a grantmaker can pool resources and overcome barriers to entry by partnering with another grantmaker who shares programming goals. If grantmakers forge partnerships, they will dedicate more resources to programming. Partnerships are not vehicles for grantmakers to deliver static, one-time gifts to nonprofits. Rather, I believe grantmaker-nonprofit partnerships are proof of dynamic relationships between likeminded people who see grants not as charity or hand-outs, but as instruments of social justice.

Partnership Responsibilities:

Although the reports and panelists touched on the responsibilities grantmakers and nonprofits accept when they form partnerships, partnership benefits received more time and attention. Thus, I wanted to continue the conversation of partnership responsibilities. Interestingly, however, the responsibilities I enumerate below can become benefits. By identifying and executing each of these responsibilities, the impact of philanthropic funding expands.

(1) Conduct background research:
Understand both the big picture and the nuances of a given situation (and determine if, when, and how you can replicate best practices).

(2) Learn everyone’s role:
Who is the lead decision-maker? Who comprises the supporting cast? Who labors backstage, and how can you ensure that their accomplishments receive earned recognition? How can your performance enhance the performances of others?

(3) Read from the same script:
Share a common definition and prioritization of goals (short-term and long-term), strategies for achieving those goals, and benchmarks for achieving those strategies. For example, is your goal to create better schools? Well, how do you define “better”? Does better refer to teachers? If so, are you referring to better teacher quality or quantity? What metrics will determine if the abilities or number of teachers are met? Then, consider whether deficiencies in teacher quality and quantity are the core problems, or if they are symptoms of deeper problems in the education infrastructure.

(4) Plan the length of your run (multi-year grants):
Even the largest foundations have finite resources, and they still shoulder the burdened of saying “no” to many worthy causes. So, when foundations do say “yes,” they must grant both funding and adequate time for the funding to begin reaping success. Sometimes, unrealistic expectations of certain one-year grants can lead to failure.

(5) Encourage audience participation:
Guarantee that the goals you share with your partners align with the needs of the community you serve. If realignment is needed, listen to community members and adapt. Don’t squeeze the proverbial square peg in the round hole. Also, consider the long-term value of civic engagement, advocacy, and/or community organizing (and realize that your audience may have a different lexicon for these ideas).

Christine Reeves is field assistant at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP).

posted on: Wednesday, October 21, 2009

By Ben MacConnell

Seize the day! That seems to have been the rally cry in community organizing circles ever since the former Chicago organizer – now president and Nobel laureate – Barack Obama beat Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries in the summer of 2008.

Having a former organizer in the White House does seem to have presented a unique opportunity for the field of community organizing. In April, the New York Times printed an article (in their fashion section no less) suggesting that President Obama has made community organizing “cool again.” College professors have reported that previously obscure classes on community organizing are now seeing record enrollments. Last year, during the Direct Action and Research Training Center's (DART) annual recruitment drive for the DART Organizers Institute, recruiters collected over 2,000 resumes and 900 applicants for only 17 available positions. So something seems to be happening.

But seizing the day can take many forms. When Sarah Palin mocked President Obama’s organizing experience at the Republican national convention, community organizers across the country launched websites, wrote blogs and printed bumper stickers to defend the profession. After the inauguration, several foundations pieced together money – even with the market crash – to encourage activities that would capitalize on this moment in history. When President Obama announced his plans to reform healthcare, some community organizations that have historically focused their efforts locally, began sending staff to the beltway to work at the national level.

Business writer, Jim Collins, is an unusual author to cite for an article about community organizing. But then again, Collins has researched how to build great companies that last, and any recipe for enduring greatness ought to be understood by disciplined organizers. Collins talks a great deal about companies that spend too much energy telling the time of the day and not enough energy building clocks. Martin Luther King, Jr. made a similar observation when describing churches during the civil rights movement. He said churches had acted more like thermometers recording the temperature of the day, rather than thermostats that set the level of heat.

These lessons seem relevant to this “seize the moment” phenomenon that’s currently all the rage. It suggests that instead of focusing on telling the time with the hottest issue campaigns, organizing technology or slogans, the field of community organizing needs to take this opportunity to build good clocks. To do this, community organizing needs to do what any industry does with a long-term interest on impacting the world – it draws in, uses and retains great talent. Notably, most applicants to the DART Organizers Institute said that their interest in organizing didn’t stem from President Obama’s past life as an organizer, but from someone they know and respect telling them about this line of work. So while President Obama’s past has raised awareness, the onus is still on organizers and their allies to do the outreach and cultivation necessary to bring talented people into this line of work.

Every year or two a survey or report is issued that highlights the severe need for more professional organizers to sustain a movement. In 1998, the Peace Development Fund reported that community organizations faced, “survival issues hampering efficiency and effectiveness, including personnel issues such as high turnover, the scarcity of trained organizers, and burnout. …” After surveying 100 local faith-based community organizers, Interfaith Funders discovered in 2001that, “The factor most consistently cited by respondents as limiting the growth of their work is the recruitment of talented organizers.” Andrew Mott, the former Director of the Center for Community Change, wrote in his 2006 report compiled for Community Catalyst, “We have invested too little in developing sufficient numbers of people with the vision, breadth of knowledge, commitment and skills needed to tackle the issues, which low-income communities and people of color face in America today.” All of these reports and others like them have drawn the same conclusion – the ability to build strong organizations committed to a shift in power and reversing injustice rests on the capacity to develop great community organizers.

For all of these reasons, we – organizers and funders alike - ought not ask how to seize the day; we ought to ask how to seize a generation.

Ben MacConnell is Director of the DART Organizers Institute, a field school for new professional community organizers that will be celebrating its tenth year in 2010. For more details, check out their latest video.

Editor’s note: In a couple of months, the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy will be marking the first anniversary of Strengthening Democracy, Increasing Opportunities: Impact of Advocacy, Organizing and Civic Engagement, a series of reports that highlights the positive impact that communities have seen through funder-supported nonprofit policy engagement. This posting by guest contributor Ben MacConnell brings home a basic resource requirement for nonprofit advocacy groups – or any organization - to have a chance at success.

posted on: Friday, October 02, 2009

by Niki Jagpal

On October 1, the Alliance for Justice posted some great news on their website: they received a ruling from the IRS regarding the rules that apply to the organization’s grants to groups that lobby. This was several years in the making. In 2005, AFJ had asked the IRS for a ruling to clarify whether public charities , like their private foundation counterparts, are allowed to provide grants to groups that lobby. As AFJ notes, private foundations have had this clarity from the IRS while public charities, including community foundations, have not.

Nan Aron, president of AFJ, stated in the press release: “This is an important clarification for the nonprofit sector … For the first time, public charities have guidance on how to treat grants to groups that lobby. We hope this clarification will give more grantmakers the confidence they need to fund aggressive advocacy."

Although the ruling only applies to AFJ, the press release states that it signals the IRS’s approach to evaluating similar re-granting work in the sector in the future. I certainly hope it does.

Since last year, we’ve produced a series of reports on the broad social benefits of advocacy, organizing and civic engagement under our Grantmaking for Community Impact Project. Although there is a clear distinction between advocacy and lobbying, and the rules governing each, lobbying isn’t a “four-letter’ word. It’s unfortunate that so many people just think of K-street “special interest” groups lobbying on behalf of mega-corporations. And right now, everyone’s hearing about PhRMA, and its unfettered influence on the healthcare reform conundrum. But lobbying is a perfectly valid and appropriate strategy. A lot of times, it’s a great tool for the advocacy and community organizing work that nonprofits do on issues such as access to better education, minimum wage and civil rights.

Congratulations to AFJ and a shout out to the IRS for clarifying the rules governing AFJ’s work. I share AFJ’s hope that this is a positive sign for IRS rules governing other public charities in our sector.

Do you agree that public foundations or public charities ought to be governed by the same rules that apply to private foundations? Share your thoughts with us in our comments – we’d love to hear from you!

Niki Jagpal is research & policy director at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP).

posted on: Monday, June 08, 2009

By Lisa Ranghelli

Where I live in Western Massachusetts, tapping maple trees is a livelihood for some and a hobby for others. During the fleeting weeks of sap season, I look forward to putting a tap into a tree and seeing the clear sweet liquid immediately begin to flow into the bucket. The work to collect that sap and turn it into syrup is a labor of love, but there is nothing more satisfying than pouring your own maple syrup over pancakes hot off the griddle.

Tapping individual donors also requires hard work and persistence, but the payoff is equally gratifying, and no doubt more lasting than the time it takes to swallow those delicious bites of syrup-laden pancake.

After all, that’s where the money is: three-quarters of all charitable giving is done by individuals, dwarfing foundation grantmaking. As nonprofit recipients have pointed out, there tends to be a lot less paperwork and more flexibility involved with private donations compared with institutional grants. Yet, a survey of progressive individual donors found that while the vast majority does support organizing, 42 percent of them focus less than 25 percent of their giving on community organizing.

Here enters the Linchpin Campaign. Linchpin, a project of the Center for Community Change, is the brainchild of NCRP board member Marjorie Fine, who is determined to help organizing groups raise more funds from major donors. Fine has extensively surveyed progressive donors about what they fund and why. Now the Linchpin Campaign has released a guide that draws on these survey findings and the collective wisdom of donors and fundraisers to help social justice organizations access individual wealth. Untapped: How Community Organizers Can Develop and Deepen Relationships with Major Donors and Raise Big Money was written by Joan Minieri, an award-winning community organizer and author. The guide has hands-on tools to help organizers apply their organizing skills and knowledge to the task of donor cultivation and engagement.

Untapped reinforces some of NCRP’s own findings about institutional philanthropy – that many donors believe it is difficult to measure the impacts of organizing. And even though donors want to make a difference, they may not see organizing as a cost-effective strategy to achieve tangible results. The guide offers practical advice on how to alter these perceptions. Fine believes that now is an excellent time to fundraise, despite the economy:

There is so much heightened awareness about community organizing and civic participation right now, and whether economic conditions are up or down, people with wealth have money and they continue to give. Untapped resources for community organizing lie with individuals—individuals who want to give and who are looking for opportunities where their dollars can make a real difference.

Like so many maples trees lining a country road, individual donors are waiting to be tapped …

Lisa Ranghelli is senior research associate at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP) and co-author of Strengthening Democracy, Increasing Opportunities: Impacts of Advocacy, Organizing and Civic Engagement.

posted on: Tuesday, June 02, 2009

By Lisa Ranghelli

The Beldon Fund officially closed its doors on May 31, 2009. But it left behind an infrastructure of advocacy groups that already have achieved significant impacts and have the capacity to continue to make a difference on the issues Beldon’s founder cares about–the environment and environmental health.

In 1998 John Hunting, Beldon’s founder, infused the Foundation with $100 million and committed to spend down that investment in ten years. The foundation’s leaders decided that the most effective way to move the needle on environmental issues in such a short time would be to support advocacy. Beldon used strategic approaches to its advocacy funding, focusing on a handful of states to concentrate its grantmaking. During that decade Beldon’s leaders also decided to incorporate support for non-partisan voter engagement to amplify the power of its advocacy partners. One area where Beldon saw tremendous progress in a decade was in Americans’ understanding of the risks of toxic chemicals all around them – in their homes, their children’s’ schools, their cosmetics. One former Beldon grantee, Toxic Free NC, offers an example of statewide impact from support for advocacy. As highlighted in NCRP’s recent report on advocacy and organizing in North Carolina, Toxic Free and its allies have prevented and reduced North Carolinians’ exposure to pesticides and cleaning chemicals.

The foundation’s revamped website is chock full of lesson learned, case studies, tips and resources for other funders and advocates. The foundation is refreshingly honest about efforts that were less successful, like its six-year investment in Florida, which did not result in the development of effective statewide advocacy leadership on environmental issues. By sharing its observations on why this effort failed, Beldon is helping advance knowledge in the field. Let’s hope more foundations follow their lead, so that both support for advocacy and also sharing of information, warts and all, becomes the norm rather than the exception.

Lisa Ranghelli is senior research associate at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP) and co-author of Strengthening Democracy, Increasing Opportunities: Impacts of Advocacy, Organizing and Civic Engagement in North Carolina.

posted on: Tuesday, May 26, 2009

by Julia Craig

As The Chronicle of Philanthropy reported last week, a recent study from Funders for Gay and Lesbian Issues (FGLI) found that grantmaking to LGBTQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer)* causes is expected to grow in 2009. In late April, FLGI surveyed 33 grantmakers who give significantly to LGBTQ causes and found that while some were planning to scale back, the difference was more than made up by those planning to increase their giving this year.

The study – LGBTQ Grantmaking by U.S. Foundations (2007) – examined data from 2007 grantmaking, the last year for which data is available. It found that grantmaking to LGBTQ causes increased 18 percent that year to $77.2 million from 293 U.S. grantmakers. Despite this good news, overall giving in this category remains low.

When preparing data for Criteria for Philanthropy at its Best (Criteria), NCRP found that in the aggregate, just 0.2 percent of foundation funding from our sample went to the LGBTQ community between 2004 and 2006. While there is no Census data on the sexual orientation or gender identity of the U.S. population, the American Community Survey does provide a proxy for same-sex households. Gaydemographics.org estimated that same-sex households accounted for about 1.14 percent of U.S. households in 2004. Single LGBTQ individuals likely represent a much larger proportion of the population.

Despite increases in recent history, overall giving remains remarkably low. The recent FGLI study reported that ten foundations accounted for nearly half of the funding in 2007. Further, ten large, national charities received a quarter of the total support. FGLI found that 10 percent of the funding went to directly benefit LGBTQ individuals (rather than organizations representing this constituency). As part of the Values chapter of Criteria, NCRP recommends grantmakers designate at least 25 percent of their funding for marginalized communities, broadly defined. LGBTQ communities are included in this definition.

What types of work are LGBTQ groups that receive foundation support undertaking? As part of a series of reports under the Grantmaking for Community Impact Project, NCRP has documented the impact of advocacy and organizing groups in New Mexico and North Carolina. In New Mexico, Equality New Mexico successfully campaigned to amend the state’s nondiscrimination clause to include “sexual orientation and gender identity” in its protected categories. In North Carolina, Equality NC partnered with non-traditional allies such as the state ARC to help pass House legislation protecting kids from being bullied in public schools. Equality NC also has worked each year since 2004 to defeat a state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, civil union or any other kind of same-sex relationship recognition. North Carolina is currently the only state in the South without such a ban. These impacts extend beyond the LGBTQ community – a constitutional ban could impact unmarried heterosexual couples, and all school children would be protected under anti-bullying legislation.

It’s great news that FGLI has found that support for LGBTQ causes is expected to increase over the coming year, particularly in light of the recession and the fact that many grantmakers are announcing cutbacks or focusing on meeting immediate needs. However, as NCRP’s data analysis shows, overall giving is incredibly low, and few foundations are supporting the direct engagement of LGBTQ constituencies at the local and state level, particularly those of color.

Julia Craig is research assistant at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy and co-author of Strengthening Democracy, Increasing Opportunities: Impacts of Advocacy, Organizing and Civic Engagement in North Carolina.

* FGLI defines “LGBTQ” this way. NCRP defines it as “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Questioning.”

posted on: Friday, May 22, 2009

By Lisa Ranghelli

“I’m just more aware of the nitty-gritty of needs that happen every day. I just feel like, now, I’m … on the front line.”

This quote from a giving circle member speaks to the knowledge and sense of community engagement that donors develop when they participate in collective philanthropy. And in doing so, giving circle members follow many of the philanthropic values and practices NCRP promotes.

According to a new report, The Impact of Giving Together, individual donors in giving circles gave more strategically than a control group of donors. Specifically, giving circle members were more likely to: give to causes that advance a vision of change; support general operating expenses; make multi-year gifts; and take into consideration cultural differences, race, class and gender when deciding which nonprofits to support.

The report, written by Dr. Angela Eikenberry and Jessica Bearman, also found that giving circle donors give to a wider array of types of nonprofits than do traditional donors. Giving circle members are more likely to support groups concerned with women, ethnic and minority groups, the arts, and culture or ethnic awareness. And they are more likely to give to “other” causes such as the environment, advocacy, neighborhood development and international aid. Interestingly, the more engaged a donor becomes in a giving circle, the more that person becomes involved in community problem-solving and efforts to change government policies.

Giving circle members gain “a better understanding of the nonprofits operating in their communities and internationally, as well as an understanding of the issues these nonprofits face in serving their constituencies.” This may well explain why their funding practices are more strategic.

As some foundation and interest group leaders decry the values and aspirational goals of NCRP’s Criteria for Philanthropy at its Best, giving circles actually embody many of them, from general operating and multi-year funding approaches to support for diverse communities and policy change strategies.

Perhaps there are lessons here for institutional philanthropy. Foundation trustees may want to ask themselves: Am I aware of the ‘nitty gritty needs’ and the ‘frontline’ issues being faced by the constituencies I care about? Do I really have a good understanding of what it takes for the nonprofits I support to be successful? Am I as knowledgeable as I could be about the issues I seek to address?

Lisa Ranghelli is senior research associate at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP).