A recent book (summarized here) by the National Committee for Responsible Philanthropy has received much ink and pixels by those who take issue with its premise that there are four basic criteria that should guide foundations:
* Values
* Effectiveness
* Ethics
* Commitment
The primary challenge in identifying, defining and using these basic criteria is that foundations are established to impact an extremely wide variety of causes. For example, here are the mottos of three of Minnesota's largest foundations:
Helping communities reduce poverty (Northwest Area Foundation)
Courageous leaders/vibrant communities (Bush Foundation)
Helping you make the most of your giving and working together to strengthen our community (Minneapolis Foundation)
Although each of these has a different focus, it seems like each would likely say they are guided by values, effectiveness, ethics, and commitment. So why the debate, such as that present in the comments to a recent Wall Street Journal article?
As in so many aspects of life, the devil is in the details. The criterion that has generated the most debate is values; NCRP suggests that philanthropy should be directed at those who need it the most and suggest that foundations direct at least half of their giving to the following marginalized groups: 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, including these groups in other countries. Taken together, these groups are by far the majority of citizens (for example, my family fits into at least three of these categories; four if you consider that we are all aging all of the time!) and, most of the foundations I have become familiar with would meet this criteria easily, particularly as broadly applied. So I find the debate related to this criteria curious!
Where I would expect more debate is in the criteria "Effectiveness" and "Ethics". Effectiveness suggests that foundations should be supporting general operating dollars and multi-year initiatives; however, many foundations specifically exclude operating dollars from many of their funding streams. Ethics suggests that grantmakers should be open not just about their funding processes but about the impact of their investments--something foundations, like the organizations they fund--are still learning to do in a way that does not detract from direct service.
I'd love your thoughts on this report and its implications!
A recent book (summarized here) by the National Committee for Responsible Philanthropy has received much ink and pixels by those who take issue with its premise that there are four basic criteria that should guide foundations:
* Values
* Effectiveness
* Ethics
* Commitment
The primary challenge in identifying, defining and using these basic criteria is that foundations are established to impact an extremely wide variety of causes. For example, here are the mottos of three of Minnesota's largest foundations:
Helping communities reduce poverty (Northwest Area Foundation)
Courageous leaders/vibrant communities (Bush Foundation)
Helping you make the most of your giving and working together to strengthen our community (Minneapolis Foundation)
Although each of these has a different focus, it seems like each would likely say they are guided by values, effectiveness, ethics, and commitment. So why the debate, such as that present in the comments to a recent Wall Street Journal article?
As in so many aspects of life, the devil is in the details. The criterion that has generated the most debate is values; NCRP suggests that philanthropy should be directed at those who need it the most and suggest that foundations direct at least half of their giving to the following marginalized groups: 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, including these groups in other countries. Taken together, these groups are by far the majority of citizens (for example, my family fits into at least three of these categories; four if you consider that we are all aging all of the time!) and, most of the foundations I have become familiar with would meet this criteria easily, particularly as broadly applied. So I find the debate related to this criteria curious!
Where I would expect more debate is in the criteria "Effectiveness" and "Ethics". Effectiveness suggests that foundations should be supporting general operating dollars and multi-year initiatives; however, many foundations specifically exclude operating dollars from many of their funding streams. Ethics suggests that grantmakers should be open not just about their funding processes but about the impact of their investments--something foundations, like the organizations they fund--are still learning to do in a way that does not detract from direct service.
I'd love your thoughts on this report and its implications!