Philanthropy New York proudly hosted a recent debate between Aaron Dorfman (pictured left), Executive Director of the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP), and Adam Meyerson, President of The Philanthropy Roundtable, that focused on issues and concerns raised by NCRP’s recent report, Criteria for Philanthropy at Its Best: Benchmarks to Assess and Enhance Grantmaker Impact.
We asked Mr. Dorfman and Mr. Meyerson for a follow-up to their debate, which they both graciously provided.
Aaron Dorfman:
I really enjoyed the debate—thanks so much to Philanthropy New York and its members for hosting the event. It was the most thoughtful and substantive examination of Criteria for Philanthropy at Its Best since we released the report two months ago. The event embodied exactly the kind of serious dialogue we were hoping to provoke. Much of the credit for that goes to Vincent Stehle, who did a fantastic job moderating the debate and the discussion.
NCRP’s unique role within the philanthropic community is to bring the voices of nonprofits and of marginalized communities into discussions and deliberations within our sector. I think the debate helped make clear that Criteria for Philanthropy at Its Best puts forward aspirational goals that represent exemplary philanthropy through that NCRP lens. I think people are now starting to understand that we’re not talking about mandates; we’re calling for mutual accountability.
Everything that we advocate is intended to generate the greatest amount of social good possible with limited philanthropic funds—a goal I know was shared by everyone in the room, regardless of whether or not they agreed with NCRP’s recommendations.
Critics—especially those associated with The Philanthropy Roundtable—have said that total, unfettered freedom is what makes philanthropy valuable and that NCRP’s criteria are somehow a threat to that freedom. But we all know that foundations have rights and responsibilities as philanthropic citizens.
In the debate, I was disappointed that Adam Meyerson wasn’t able to articulate any responsibilities he thinks foundations should live up to, beyond complying with the law. The legal minimum is a pretty low threshold for excellence in philanthropy. I hope that by our next debate, on May 28th in Washington, DC, he’ll have a better answer to that question.
Adam Meyerson:
I, too, enjoyed the debate, and appreciate the invitation from Philanthropy New York. As we discussed, The Philanthropy Roundtable has multiple concerns about the NCRP criteria, among them:
- NCRP offers a very narrow definition of excellence. Many of the historic achievements of philanthropy—from medical research, to the arts, to environmental protection, to religious education, to the support of private and public universities, to Andrew Carnegie’s construction of public libraries—would fail to meet NCRP’s criteria. One of the greatest achievements of grantmaking in the last decade—networks of schools where low-income children excel academically—doesn’t meet NCRP standards for advocacy.
- NCRP’s standards for governance and grantmaking are arbitrary. To cite one example, while most foundations have volunteer boards, many find it helpful to offer reasonable compensation to their trustees. For instance, the Woods Fund of Chicago paid a young law professor and state senator named Barack Obama to serve on its board. We think decisions such as this should be a judgment call for foundations. So, too, we don’t think “philanthropy at its best” is limited to general operating support. When the St. Giles Foundation launched a sickle cell research program at Columbia University, it wisely recognized it could not achieve its objectives through a general operating grant to Columbia.
- Most of all, we are concerned by NCRP’s argument that foundation dollars are “partially public” dollars and that “the generous tax subsidies provided to donors and to foundations make the government and the public partners with philanthropists in pursuit of the public good.” This premise, based on a misunderstanding of preferential tax treatment for charities and foundations, is an open invitation for legislative and regulatory interference in the decisions of private organizations.
As for the question Aaron Dorfman raises in this blog post, foundations are properly held accountable to government and to the public to ensure that they are using their assets for genuinely charitable purposes. This is a serious and weighty responsibility. Foundations have multiple other responsibilities as they carry out the charitable mission and strategy which their donors and trustees have defined. For these responsibilities, as private organizations that must comply with the law but otherwise have the freedom to determine how to achieve their charitable objectives, foundations are accountable to their trustees.
For another perspective on Criteria for Philanthropy at Its Best and its potential effect on the entire independent sector, please see “Can We Still Improve Philanthropy?” by Charles H. Hamilton, Philanthropy New York’s Senior Fellow.
I also enjoyed the debate and greatly appreciate Philanthropy New York bringing this opportunity to its membership. Having a follow up blog provides an opportunity to move the debate and probe the disparate positions further.
I therefore find it surprising that Adam Meyerson has chosen to use this forum to simply repeat the points made and refuted in the meeting rather than explicate his positions or add new thinking to the debate. I guess this is what they mean by “keeping on message.”
So, once again Mr. Meyerson repeats his description of NCRP’s Criteria as if they are to be applied to individual grants, rather than the full portfolio of any foundation. Mr. Meyerson continues to tell us, for example, that those funders that support charter schools would not “count” in NCRP’s calculus. Philanthropy Roundtable has been at the forefront of the charter school movement, working with foundations and donors to affect public policy in order to increase the proliferation of charter schools. Are we meant to believe that Mr. Meyerson is really saying that advocacy is absent in the funding of charter schools? They are very aware that advocacy—as called for by NCRP—makes the private funding of charter schools possible.
I welcome real debate on the NCRP Criteria; we need to have more engaged discussion of what standards we hold ourselves to in this field. There were some interesting and challenging points made in the meeting by colleagues on both sides of the debate, and Paul Brest’s series of posts, while I may not agree with the entirety of his positions, are provocative and thoughtful as well. Mr. Meyerson and Philanthropy Roundtable have chosen instead to repeat their talking points again and again rather than delve the substance. It makes me wonder whether their argument is actually this thin or if there is something they are not saying.
NCRP has been quite explicit in their agenda. As an organization that was created to lift up the interests of marginalized populations and to press philanthropy to be responsive to those constituencies, the Criteria that they have defined make perfect sense. Philanthropy Roundtable apparently has an overt political agenda as well; they just seem to be less transparent about it.
Philanthropy New York does its best to promote thoughtful discussion, and I was grateful for this session.
One aspect of recent history that should have been mentioned is the recent assault on major foundations led by the political right. Foundations’ boards and staff had good reasons to be fearful then, and their present apprehensions are not unwise.
No one should dismiss the possibility that the far right will use the rhetoric of accountability developed by philanthropy’s left to regulate foundations in ways that substantially limit their freedom of action and even their continued life.
Another matter almost wholly missing from public comments in support of the NCRP report has been the importance of adding new philanthropists and new philanthropic resources. It may be, as Aaron Dorfman says, that we all agree foundations should support the maximum amount of social good possible; but the over-simple view of “social good” that is at the heart of the NCRP report would, if widely adopted, be discouraging to many broadly thoughtful potential philanthropists.