Agreeing to Agree

The controversy swirling around Criteria for Philanthropy at Its Best and its social justice benchmarks masks what appears to be a broader agreement across the philanthropic sector about the report’s recommendations regarding multi-year general support grants and increased giving to marginalized populations. Leaders from across the political spectrum recognize that grantmaking success is best achieved by adhering to these values.

This common understanding was on display at the recent Bradley Center for Philanthropy and Civic Renewal panel discussing the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy's (NCRP) report. If their presentations are any indication, panelists Adam Meyerson of Philanthropy Roundtable and Aaron Dorfman of the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy have much in common when it comes to the values that guide their grantmaking. The philanthropic community should act on these areas of agreement rather than dwelling on the issues that divide it.

For example, with much of the nonprofit sector experiencing economic crises, and general support funding on the decrease, the Philanthropy Roundtable and Council on Foundations could together develop a strategic campaign to increase their members' general support grantmaking. If a joint project is not feasible, the groups could initiate separate campaigns encouraging increases, and learn from each other's efforts. It would be refreshing and productive if the next round of seminars on Criteria could be devoted to how to immediately facilitate increased funding to the marginalized, rather than to whether or not foundations should be directed to do so.

While they are at it, a wide range of philanthropic leaders should also focus on another NCRP criterion: increasing grant dollars for "advocacy, organizing, and civic engagement to promote equity; opportunity and justice in our society." The need for support of advocacy received very limited discussion at the Bradley Center seminar, but it’s something that conservative foundations have recognized, and done, for years. Bradley Center Director William Schambra, known for his insightful views and conservative philosophy, emphasized his desire for a stronger focus on funding related to advocacy in Alliance for Justice’s interview compendium Words to Give By, noting "It is frustrating to see how little money is going to social change. So much more has to be done."

Decisions for how to use enormous sums of public dollars are now being made throughout the country. Those organizations that advocate for vulnerable populations will be more effective if they spend their time advocating for policies that will benefit these populations, rather than dreaming up new projects to chase funding. These organizations do their best work when they can rely on multi-year general operating support, which sustains and builds organizations and expands their capacity. As the thoughtful and progressive foundation leader Gara LaMarche, president of the Atlantic Philanthropies, observed in Criteria: "Funding advocacy and advocates is the most direct route to supporting enduring social change for the poor, the disenfranchised and the most vulnerable among us..."

Criteria has brought together players with varying views on the report who, at the same time, demonstrate agreement on important directions for philanthropic giving. Now is the time for philanthropy to move more aggressively to increase philanthropic support for the marginalized and build stronger nonprofits through more general support. Part of that strategy should also include increasing advocacy funding. It is time for the philanthropic community to agree to agree on these principles, even as it engages in healthy debates over grading and benchmarks. Note:

Bradley Center panelists included: Aaron Dorfman, NCRP, and Sherece West, Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation, supporting the report; and Adam Meyerson, Philanthropy Roundtable, and Donn Weinberg, Weinberg Foundation. William Schambra of the Bradley Center moderated the panel.