Be sure to check out the new controversial publication from the Washington, DC-based National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP) titled Criteria for Philanthropy at Its Best: Benchmarks to Assess and Enhance Grantmaker Impact. The report “provides grantmakers with the tools to ask themselves some long-overdue, perhaps difficult questions.”
NCRP proposes three criteria - Values, Effectiveness and Ethics - along with relevant strategies for foundations who aspire to practice philanthropy at its best. Some of the strategies are not surprising - for example, maintaining policies and practices that support ethical behavior. Others are more controversial, such as the recommendation that foundations provide at least 50% of their grant dollars as multi-year grants.
These criteria have been endorsed by a number of philanthropic leaders and scholars including Paul Light, Pablo Eisenberg, Bob Edgar and Kim Klein. Foundations such as The Atlantic Philanthropies and the Mary Reynolds Babcock Foundation have also joined the effort. The NCRP recommendations have the support of Representative Xavier Becerra (D-CA), senior member of the House Ways and Means Committee, who has described nonprofits as being "more nimble and creative" than the government. Rep. Becerra has also noted the need for accountability, transparency, and fiscal responsibility in the nonprofit sector and acknowledged the oversight role of Congress.
The report will be widely circulated and is sure to spark lively discussions at conferences and online. It has already been critiqued by The Chronicle of Philanthropy (3/3/09) and The Wall Street Journal (3/3/09). It is also noted in Philanthropy News Digest (3/4/09).
Take a look at the report and tell us what you think. Will foundations sign on?
Reactions to this report are coming in! A recent article in the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123785326644519781.html) provides some of the ongoing debate on this report's recommendations.
Posted by: Trina | March 25, 2009 at 12:01 PM
You can follow other reactions to this report by visiting the "In the News" section of NCRP's web site: http://www.ncrp.org/news-room/ncrp-news
Posted by: Trina | March 25, 2009 at 12:37 PM
The whole premise of NCRP and its arguments or guidelines never made sense to me: Philanthropy is private money given tax benefits so as to benefit public good: an intentionally broad and open designation. It is about assuring choice how to spend and conserve one's resources. Would be a requirement or a suggestion? The 3/4/09 PND articles says NCRP says it would be required. Involving a Congressman in their cause makes one wonder if mandated or just a social ethic.
NCRP argues there is an inherent obligation that more resources go to poor and marginalized. Thay they owe something to more needy. They want to insert it in the very concept of philanthropy. But why not lobby for disease victims through more medical breakthrough funding? Or macro issues like global warming?
Seems like dollar envy. You have riches and it bugs us and we want more for our causes.
Posted by: Mike Moran | April 17, 2009 at 10:23 AM
The Bradley Center is hosting a discussion on this report on May 28. Sign up on their website pcr.hudson.org It's a free event.
Posted by: Pat Pasqual | April 23, 2009 at 06:48 PM