There are more developments on the charity front-not exactly related to the budget issue I posted on previously–but interesting nonetheless. Apparently, the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (do not miss this link!)-NCRP, wants to work with legislators to push this agenda. At first glance, its goals laid out here seem harmless enough:
It attempts to answer the questions: What differentiates an exemplary foundation from the rest of its peers? What can foundations do to improve its relevance to nonprofits, the economically and socially underserved Americans and society as a whole?
The full text of the report came out March 3, but NCRP has been circulating a 15-page summary that already makes clear that this paper is not only replete with flawed logic, poor economic understanding and selective data, but is most disingenuously an Orwellian world of deliberate redefinition, where benign and admirable words are used but have meanings very different from common understanding.
Why? Because this report is a tool to a larger end. The document says it’s to be used to “criticize those who do not measure up.” Moreover, “Policymakers may find the criteria valuable when considering regulations or legislation … and the media will find the resource helpful for reporting.”
Back up a minute. NCRP has been around for 30 years. Its Web site homepage features “Happy Birthday, Saul Alinsky,” for the radical-left union and community organizer. Though self-styled as an independent “watchdog” of foundations, the reality is that NCRP doesn’t care about charity broadly–indeed it’s quite contemptuous of large swaths of it. It only cares about encouraging ever-greater flows of funds to the groups it deems worthy and truly serving of the public good, chief among which would be “social justice” activists like ACORN, an NCRP member.
In another article by an affiliate group critical of the report:
However, despite its name, The Alliance for Charitable Reform believes these benchmarks have nothing to do with measuring effectiveness. In fact, the natural consequence of these benchmarks will be to reduce the scope and diversity of the foundation sector to one that serves a more narrow set of highly politicized interests…
…”On average, foundation assets have dropped 20-40% and The New York Times reports an unusual number of charities filing for bankruptcy. It is incomprehensible that the NCRP is proposing criteria that could further ravage the charitable sector,”…
Again, I leave with more questions: Is there an effort out there to ‘de-fund’ or seriously reduce the funding of certain private non-profit charities, and ensure only select ones remain well-funded? If so, why? I have no idea, it may be just a misunderstanding of intentions, but it sure seems fishy.