Who should get funding in times like these?

Controversy in the funding community...see Wall Street Journal article below

We all know that the arts are facing some serious challenges. Unfortunately, it is a reality that now more than ever we are competing for dollars against social service initiatives.

Let's be honest - feed a homeless child or help a theatre put on show? I have to admit - I would probably give my dollar to the homeless child. In times like these most people will. Of course there is the argument that Arts feed the soul. But who are we kidding, as with September 11 and Katrina, we need to adjust our funding requests and justifications.

I am not suggesting we all go out and start a bunch of new programs directed to the increasing "poor." Quite the opposite. I think we all need to think about our missions. Are truly serving our communities as we want to or are we only serving the upper echelon of our society? We have to ask ourselves honestly does our organization only want our programming (except maybe education programs) to serve the upper echelon of society.

Unfortunately the majority of the professional theatre in this country is produced and presented for wealthy. It is an assumption I am making - before everyone comments asking for proof - based on price of tickets alone (let alone the cost of baby-sitters, dinner out, and transportation). Of course discount and outreach programs open the doors to a few others, but as a whole you have to have a healthy weekly pay check to catch a performance. What are we as theatre managers to do to open up our houses to those who can't afford $35-65 tickets? And do we really want to? And if we can't or don't - how can we or should we compete with all of the social service and education initiatives out there, especially when most of our donors have a lot less to give?

Just the beginning of the conversation.




MARCH 23, 2009, 8:18 P.M. ET

Foundations Oppose Call to Target Grants

A prominent philanthropy watchdog has riled some foundations by releasing a report suggesting they should devote half their grants to minorities, the poor and other disadvantaged groups.

The report, released this month by the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, argued that foundations should meet a handful of benchmarks to practice "philanthropy at its best," including making half their annual grants to "lower-income communities, communities of color and other marginalized groups, broadly defined."

Several foundation leaders have called that benchmark overly prescriptive and argued it could exclude philanthropies that pursue missions such as the arts, medical research and education -- areas that might not always directly affect the groups identified by the committee. In addition, the committee lobbies Capitol Hill, so some fear the report could spur stricter regulation of foundations' activities.

Criticism of the report has intensified in recent days, with a well-known foundation president blasting the report's findings on an Internet blog and another large foundation canceling its membership with the committee. The committee in turn circulated a memo attempting to shoot down criticisms.

Aaron Dorfman, the committee's executive director, said his group doesn't seek to codify the benchmarks and that he has been "surprised by the amount of venom" the report's suggestions have produced.

"We couldn't have been clearer that this isn't intended to be a set of legislative suggestions or mandates in any way," Mr. Dorfman said. "This is a document to spark discussions among the leaders of our nation's grant makers and to challenge them to be more responsive to marginalized communities."

The debate over the report comes as foundations face increased economic and political pressures. Foundation assets fell about 28% last year amid tumbling world-wide markets, according to the Council on Foundations, a Washington group that lobbies on behalf of more than 2,000 grant makers.

The committee's philanthropy benchmark report found that most foundations steer about a third of their grants toward "marginalized groups," defined to include the poor, minorities, women, people with AIDS, the disabled, the elderly, immigrants and refugees, and crime and abuse victims, among others.

The committee advocated 10 benchmarks. It said foundations should distribute 6% of their assets annually, up from the current legally required 5%. The report also advocated better transparency and more-diverse boards at foundations.

But the benchmark on grant allocations drew the most fire. Paul Brest, president of the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, called that proposal "breathtakingly arrogant" in a blog entry on the Huffington Post Web site.

"I don't agree with it at all," Mr. Brest said in an interview. "Whether you call it arrogant or inappropriate -- you could imagine 10 different organizations deciding the most important issue is cancer" instead of marginalized communities, he said.

The California Wellness Foundation canceled its membership with the committee and asked for money to be returned after reviewing the report. The report "sounds like an attempt to endorse a one-size-fits-all approach for all foundations," said Gary Yates, the foundation's president. He said the foundation canceled its membership because it didn't want to be viewed as "tacitly endorsing positions" the committee takes.

Many foundations, charities and nonprofit leaders endorsed the report. Among the most prominent was the Atlantic Philanthropies. Many critics are "misreading" the report, said Lori Bezahler, president of the Edward W. Hazen Foundation, another endorser.

"This is a set of ways we can look at our work," Ms. Bezahler said, adding that many other groups have explored best philanthropic practices.

In a follow-up report addressing criticisms from foundation leaders, the committee said "flexibility is important" for foundations and that their leaders should decide whether to meet or exceed its proposed benchmarks.