Latest News
Statement from Adam Meyerson, The Philanthropy Roundtable
Adam Meyerson, President of The Philanthropy Roundtable, comments on the new report from NCRP on foundation grantmaking.
Excerpt: “The Philanthropy Roundtable believes that the world of grant-making can benefit from a robust debate about standards of excellence in charitable giving. We therefore applaud the title of a new report by the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy: Philanthropy at Its Best: Measurable Benchmarks to Assess and Enhance Grantmaker Impact. Unfortunately, the report does not live up to the title’s promise. NCRP’s standards for excellence are too narrow and arbitrary to be a useful guide for grantmakers seeking to improve their performance, or for media and watchdog groups seeking to assess charitable giving…”
Download the full Roundtable statement below.
For more on ACR and the philanthropic community’s response to the NCRP report click on the PAIB Report button below.
Further Reading
The Chronicle of Philanthropy
The Chronicle of Philanthropy reports on the new report from NCRP, “Criteria for Philanthropy at Its Best”.
Exceprt: “Foundations should spend at least half of their grant dollars to help poor neighborhoods and minorities, a foundation watchdog group here said today as part of a series of recommendations on how grant makers should improve their giving and management. The proposal by the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy received support from a member of Congress and at least 120 charitable leaders, but several associations that represent foundations have criticized it, arguing that the approach would stifle philanthropy.
Further Reading
Statement by Tim Walter, Association for Small Foundations
A statement from Tim Walter, CEO of the Assocation for Small Foundations, on NCRP’s new report “Criteria for Philanthropy at Its Best”.
Excerpt: “NCRP is a valuable component of the philanthropic community in the USA. The perspectives in the report are representative of a subset of the foundation community, possibly a majority. Yet these perspectives by no means represent the full story of the wonder and potential of American philanthropy…”
For the full statement download the document below.
Further Reading
Commentary by Heather Higgins, Forbes
Heather Higgins, Vice-Chairman of The Philanthropy Roundtable, comments on the new report by NCRP on foundation grantmaking.
Excerpt: “If the health and viability of the charitable sector matters to you, if the charities you care about are supported by foundations and particularly if you think the work foundations do is important, brace yourself. The National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP), has produced a report misleadingly titled “Criteria for Philanthropy at its Best; Measurable Benchmarks to Assess Foundation Performance…”
Further Reading
ACR Press Release on NCRP report
The Alliance for Charitable Reform releases a statement on the new report by NCRP.
Excerpt: “Today, the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP) released a set of benchmarks for what they call, “Philanthropy at its Best”. Despite its name, these benchmarks have nothing to do with measuring effectiveness. In fact, the natural consequence of these benchmarks will be to reduce the scope and diversity of the foundation sector to one that serves a more narrow set of highly politicized interests.”
For the full ACR press release on this report, download the file below.
Further Reading
Huffington Post Series by Paul Brest
In response to the recently released report by NCRP on foundation grantmaking, Paul Brest, President of the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, launched a blog series examining facets of the report and the impact of its recommendations on the philanthropic community:
- March 5, 2009 - NCRP at its Most Presumptuous
Excerpt: “Even for someone who shares NCRP’s concerns about marginalized communities, its hierarchy of ends is breathtakingly arrogant. Its prescriptions of means are more of a mixed bag. Many of the 70,000 foundations in the United States might actually contribute more to society if they followed some of the Criteria. But the tremendous social good done by others would be severely compromised. In aiming for the lowest common denominator, NCRP pushes the entire sector toward mediocrity…”
- March 13, 2009 - Philanthropy Mostly For the Better: NCRP’s Criteria for Governance and Transparency
Excerpt: ” By the same token, reporting on the race, gender, etc. of grantees may raise the awareness of both foundations and grant seekers. A number of foundations that I admire do this. But NCRP sends at least a mixed message when it focuses on an organization’s diversity to the exclusion of its impact on people’s lives…”
- March 20, 2009 - Philanthropy at its Somewhat Myopic: Mistaking Means and Ends
Excerpt: “In mandating the use of a particular funding instrument, NCRP’s requirement not only seems heavy-handed, but also ignores the fundamental question of impact. Just as a hammer is a useful tool for constructing a building, general support can be a useful tool for organizations and their donors to achieve impact. But donors, just like craftspeople, need to know when and how to use the other philanthropic tools available to them…”
- March 27, 2009 - Philanthropy on Another Planet
- April 3, 2009 - Philanthropy by the Numbers
Excerpt: “The Criteria cover some of the most important issues facing philanthropy today. NCRP states that its only goal is to press foundation board and staff members to come to terms with those issues. If so, it has lost a great opportunity by substituting meaningless metrics and tendentious advocacy for thoughtful, even-handed, empirically based analysis…”
Naomi Shaefer Riley opinion, Wall Street Journal
Naomi Schaefer Riley of the the Wall Street Journal comments on the new report by NCRP and efforts by activist groups to steer philanthropic dollars to particular causes.
Excerpt: “Nonprofit leaders are reeling from the recent news that President Barack Obama’s proposed budget would limit tax deductions on charitable contributions from wealthy Americans. But now the philanthropic world has something else to worry about. Today the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP), a research and advocacy group, will release a report offering “benchmarks to assess foundation performance.” Its real aim is to push philanthropic organizations into ignoring donor intent and instead giving grants based on political considerations…
Further Reading
Media statement from Steve Gunderson, President and CEO of the Council on Foundations
Excerpt: “The Council on Foundations supports the diversity of philanthropy-in our members’ missions, our work, and our people. We do so because diversity of purpose and perspective defines the mission of each philanthropic organization. Given this belief, we cannot endorse mandates, or imposed measures that seek to promote a one-size-fits-all approach. We believe that the combination of voluntary leadership promoting diversity and inclusion, as evidenced by the Council’s work in this area, combined with a rejection of mandatory government regulations will best promote philanthropy-in size and service to society. The National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy’s (NCRP) publication, Philanthropy at its Best, suggests the use of a single set of measures to strengthen philanthropy and the nonprofit sector. While the Council on Foundations shares NCRP’s goal of building a strong sector, we reject the use of a single template to promote effective philanthropy. Each foundation is different in its structure, mission, place of work, and pursuit of goals…”
Click here to read Steve Gunderson’s full response to the NCRP report
Profiles of organizations excluded from pool for grantmaking based on NCRP’s benchmarks
On March 3, the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP) will release an opinion piece offering their view of excellence in foundation management. Included will be criteria for which charities should be favored over others to receive grants. One of their guidelines is that foundations should minimize grants to non-marginalized groups. Their definition of ‘marginalized’ is not only restrictive, it would result in a grantmaking environment where race, gender, age, ethnicity and financial status, among other factors, become the predominant factors in foundation funding decisions. The criteria replaces, in large part, donor intent and picks “winners” and “losers” among the nation’s charities.
For a look at charities at risk under the NCRP report, download the document below.
Further Reading
Nonprofit leaders speak out against NCRP’s report “Criteria for Philanthropy at Its Best”.
Excerpt: “The world of grant-making can benefit from a robust debate about standards of excellence in charitable giving. We therefore applaud the title of a new report by the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy: Criteria for Philanthropy at Its Best: Measurable Benchmarks to Assess and Enhance Grantmaker Impact. Unfortunately, the report does not live up to the title’s promise. NCRP’s standards for excellence are too narrow and arbitrary to be a useful guide for grantmakers seeking to improve their performance, or for media and watchdog groups seeking to assess charitable giving…”
Download a list of statements from leaders in the philanthropic community.
Further Reading
