July 05, 2009
Dueling Research on the True Beneficiaries of Foundation Grants
Who benefits from grant making?
A seemingly simple question, but a recent study on the subject has triggered a variety of responses, with vastly different conclusions.
This month the Philanthropic Collaborative, a Washington nonprofit coalition, released a report that estimated that two out of every three grant dollars to health causes helps the poor and disadvantaged populations.
The report sought in part to repudiate the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, a foundation watchdog that is pushing grant makers to give more to marginalized people. The committee, in Washington, has said that one out of three grant dollars to all causes helps under-served populations.
To some, the report reveals a left-wing conspiracy to convince Congress to regulate foundations, a move that would help “destroy de Tocquevillian America,” as Peter Roff, a conservative columnist, writes on the Web site of U.S. News & World Report
To be sure, the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy has stated it is not seeking new legislation. In its online response to the report, the committee did say it continues to support “targeted universalism,” an idea that philanthropic efforts to help impoverished people and other disadvantaged groups would help society as a whole.
There is one thing that the Philanthropic Collaborative and National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy do agree upon: the data about foundation spending can be improved.
The two organizations based their analysis on information from the Foundation Center, a nonprofit research group in New York. On its blog, Larry McGill, the center’s senior vice president for research, writes that both sides in the debate make important points.
He also suggests that grant makers are in part to blame for the confusion. “Foundations,” he writes, “may not be telling us as much as they could about the population groups that benefit from their grant making.”
What do you think? Where is this debate headed? Share your views by clicking on the comment button below.
Comments
Commenting is closed for this article.
Previous: New York Pastor Resigns
Next: Are Tax-Exemption Challenges Heating Up?
Interesting. Does this mean that the Philanthropic Collaborative would endorse a goal of $2 out of every $3 going to benefit poor and disadvantaged populations? Ian, have you asked them that question?
If they endorse, or won’t object to the $2 of $3, then maybe the data quality problem is the only issue, and they and other critics may be more in agreement with NCRP and others calling for more responsive philanthropy than they may think. (Full disclosure: I am a member of the board of NCRP).
— Pete Manzo Jul 7, 12:39 PM #
Pete,
while I can’t speak for the Philanthropic Collaborative, I would wager their response would be that it rejects any such recommendations for what causes a donor/foundation should support.
It argues such decisions are a personal choice of the founders.
— Ian Wilhelm Jul 7, 12:56 PM #
Hi Ian. Thanks for providing this forum and for highlighting our report. Your instinct is correct that it’s not our mission to lecture foundations on how to best accomplish their respective goals.
The study looks at “Who Benefits?” from foundation giving under the current rules, specifically in the area of health.
As you noted, Dr. Swagel determined that two-thirds of health-related grant dollars go to benefit minorities and underserved populations, suggesting that private and community foundations are doing an excellent job of supporting the communities that need them the most.
It’s a positive finding based on rigorous analysis and we hope it will help inform decision makers during these challenging times.
That, after all, is our mission.
— Brian Reardon Jul 8, 04:02 PM #
Ian and Brian,
Thanks for your responses, and thanks Ian, as Brian notes, for the opportunity to engage on this subject.
Are we in agreement, then, that improvements in the quality of data on the beneficiaries of grants would be welcome?
Also in my view, and my understanding of NCRP’s view, donors should be free to choose what causes they support, and all of us also are free to encourage or urge them, however, to support causes we think are more just. The First Amendment cuts in both those directions. NCRP and the sponsors of the Criteria believe that any grantmaker could benefit from giving serious consideration to the concerns we raise.
Thanks again,
Pete
— Pete Manzo Jul 8, 11:02 PM #