In March 2009, the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP) set off a philanthropic firestorm with the release of a new report, Criteria for Philanthropy at Its Best: Benchmarks to Assess and Enhance Grantmaker Impact. The Criteria is a set of measurable guidelines to help foundations and other institutional grantmakers operate ethically and maximize the impact of their dollars. At some point I’ll summarize my own thoughts about the criteria in a coherent blog post, but for now, I just want to make sure you know what other nonprofit thought leaders are saying about it.
- NCRP: To Agree to Disagree? That’s the Question: Luz Vega-Marquis, President & CEO, Marguerite Casey Foundation says, “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.”
- NCRP Executive Director Aaron Dorfman urges grantmakers to keep an open mind until they have read the document for themselves. Mandates or Leadership Imperative: The NCRP Debate – Aaron Dorfman, Antonia Hernández, and Paul Brest
- Gene Takagi shares his thoughts about the NCRP report on his Nonprofit Law Blog.
- In Hitting the Nail on the Thumb: Fallout from NCRP’s “Philanthropy at its Best” Albert Ruesga writes, “Where some critics see the NCRP report as a kind of ideological manifesto, I see in it a plea for greater effectiveness in grantmaking. If that’s the case, then perhaps we can fault the report not for its excesses, but for not having gone far enough.”
- Paul Brest, President of The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation has thought long and hard about the NCRP criteria. He shares his very thorough opinions about the report in a five-part blog series over at the Huffington Post.
- Chronicle of Philanthropy coverage of the report and backlash: Group Pushes Foundations to Give More to Minorities and the Poor and Foundation Rescinds Grant to Watchdog Group
Rhonda on 
Hue on 
Nick on 
