NCRP: To Agree to Disagree? That’s the Question
Overheard
In early March, the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy published its “Criteria for Philanthropy at Its Best: Benchmarks to Assess and Enhance Grantmaker Impact.” T>A>I invited several leaders and grantmakers to share their thoughts about the publication.
Here—in their own words—is what we learned.
“…our field can do so much more…to promote equity and to work…with our grantees.”
As a board member of the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, I endorsed and helped develop the criteria because I believe our field can do so much more than we are currently doing to promote equity and to work in true partnership with our grantees. The Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation doesn’t meet nearly all of the benchmarks. That’s okay. NCRP’s goal is not to mandate standards. Our goal is to have the leaders of every grantmaking institution in the nation seriously consider the important issues we raise. Have the discussions, and if a recommendation makes sense for your foundation, make the change. That’s all we’re asking.
- Sherece Y. West, President and CEO, Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation
“Family foundations are a vehicle for people to express their passions charitably.”
First, to impose a 6 percent payout as NCRP proposes is not sustainable. A foundation really needs to make 9 percent a year to meet its 5 percent payout requirement, because it has to get 5 percent plus 3 percent for inflation plus 1 percent for investment fees. A return of 9 percent is just about the long-term rate of return on stocks, yet for diversification and cash flow, a foundation cannot be 100 percent in stocks. Six percent puts foundations on the slow road to spending down. If NCRP wants to debate perpetuity, let them do so directly, not through a non-sustainable formula.
Second, I am ambivalent about quotas and mandates about race and general support. The Memorial Fund would probably stack up well on these measures. Nonetheless, would it be wrong for a family foundation to devote its grants entirely to the support of classical music organizations, and to do so on a project basis? NCRP clearly thinks so. I am not so sure. Family foundations are a vehicle for people to express their passions charitably. If their love is a particular kind of music, so be it.
- David Nee, Executive Director, William Caspar Graustein Memorial Fund
“NCRP’s criteria is…a challenge to the philanthropic status quo”
NCRP’s “Criteria for Philanthropy at its Best” is intended and received as a challenge to the philanthropic status quo. By benchmarking best practices and naming foundations that fall short of these benchmarks, NCRP has certainly stimulated debate. However, I find it unfortunate that the debate is not focused on NCRP’s core assumption that tax-exempt foundations have a role and responsibility to promote social justice and full inclusion in public life. Nor has the debate focused on the pluses and minuses of the specific practices recommended by NCRP. Instead, discussion has centered on the question of whether any one organization should dictate values for the field as a whole. Although I serve on the board of a family foundation that supports social justice through community organizing and has pioneered many of NCRP’s best practices, I respect and appreciate diversity in the field of philanthropy. I regret that the normative approach of the document has distracted readers from its well researched and thought provoking content.
- Sarah Stranahan, Trustee, The Needmor Fund
“…choices about grantmaking approaches need to be made in the context of [a foundation’s] goals.”
NCRP’s report fails to adequately address the fact that foundations are widely diverse in the goals they choose to pursue with their charitable dollars, and that choices about grantmaking approaches need to be made in the context of those goals. I worry that readers will be distracted by the prescriptive nature of the criteria and avoid the more fundamental questions that all foundations should be addressing. Does the foundation have clear and specific goals? Does it pursue coherent, well-implemented strategies to achieve those goals? Does it use performance indicators—including feedback from grantees and others—to regularly assess and adjust strategies as needed to achieve those goals? Absent affirmative answers to these questions, any proposed criteria will be insufficient to move foundations toward greater effectiveness and, ultimately, more impact on communities, issues, and people.
- Lisa Jackson, Vice President, Research, Center for Effective Philanthropy
“…without those periodic efforts to push the sector…the voluntary actions of foundations remain largely dormant”
NCRP has taken a bold step in putting some meat on the discussion of what it means to practice philanthropy for the social good. Institutional philanthropy’s largely knee-jerk outrage at any recommendations proposing grantmaking criteria or standards of institutional behavior has a long history and, yet, without those periodic efforts to push the sector towards greater inclusion and equity, the voluntary actions of foundations remain largely dormant. Our endorsement of this report reflects our support for NCRP’s efforts to recommend voluntary criteria and benchmarks, promote greater foundation accountability, and provoke debate.
- Karen Zelermyer, Executive Director, Funders for Lesbian and Gay Issues
“The vigorous debate about the criteria… will undoubtedly take the field to a higher level”
Since its inception in 2001, Marguerite Casey Foundation (MCF) has been helping low-income families in disadvantaged communities strengthen their voice in order to mobilize their communities to achieve a more just and equitable society. Based upon this mission and having researched conservative movements that have successfully demonstrated that long-term core support builds strong, self-sustaining organizations, MCF adopted a multi-year, general support grantmaking approach. While we do not embrace all of the NCRP criteria, we support the benchmarks selected by NCRP to assess and enhance grantmaker impact because they represent the best practices to support our strategy of movement building. The vigorous debate about the criteria developed by NCRP will undoubtedly take the field to a higher level and benefit foundations as they strive to maximize their impact and advance movement building.
- Luz Vega-Marquis, President and CEO, Marguerite Casey Foundation
“The…sector is best suited to support efforts that… still exist around issues of race and class.”
Philanthropy should be a transformative force in society and the criteria, which I proudly endorsed, challenges our field to decisively act to address societal inequities. Let’s face it, money still equals power and NCRP, rightly so, is calling on us to use a portion of our resources to help lift the voices of those too often ignored. The philanthropic sector is best suited to support efforts that confront the deep divisions that still exist around issues of race and class. The NCRP report puts forth sound principles and practices we ought to follow to advance social change. Foundation leaders should give it a fair review and ask how your institution is making a lasting impact.
- Victor De Luca, President, Jessie Smith Noyes Foundation
“…any analysis of philanthropic leadership that fails to consider…cross-border grantmaking…is almost certain to be incomplete…”
The stunning emotional stir caused by NCRP’s new report on philanthropic leadership suggests that it has hit a raw nerve, probably because there is at least some truth to its critique. However my main concern about the report harkens back to the narrow scope reflected by the organization’s original name—the ‘NATIONAL’ Committee for Responsive Philanthropy. In our new, ‘flat’ globalized world, any analysis of philanthropic leadership that fails to consider the complexities of cross-border grantmaking—and justice in the global context—is almost certain to be incomplete or even ethnocentrically distorted.
- Chet Tchozewski, President, Global Greengrants Fund
“Philanthropy can benefit…from…a clear…code of conduct…”
Philanthropy can benefit enormously from having a clear, strong code of conduct widely accepted and understood. Such a standard might be comparable to the 1980’s Sullivan Principles that contributed so much to the demise of apartheid in South Africa.
The basic, if not all the principles of such a valuable compact have been developed by the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy under the compelling name: “Criteria for Philanthropy at its Best.”
All of us concerned for philanthropy should endorse and work for these practices to be part of a national consensus enhancing the public good.
- John Morning, Trustee, Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, Rockefeller Brothers Fund
March 31st, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Lisa,
Well said. I’ll also add that making the focus on who gets the grants, rather than outcomes or who are the ultimate beneficiaries, similarly ignores the larger context about what foundations are trying to accomplish individually or collectively.