I vacillated over whether or not to write about the new “Just Awards.” On the one hand, I have an aversion to negativity and I tend not to like when people throw shade at those who are really trying hard to do the right thing.  On the other hand, I do think that the nonprofit and foundation world could benefit from some sharp criticism of questionable activities just like any other area of endeavor.  In the end, I decided to do a piece on the Just Awards simply because I thought PPC members should know about it.  And, I thought it would be good to stoke some conversation about the idea of highlighting questionable activities with what is essentially our own little Razzie Awards.

Part of the problem is that the first recipients are very well known to those of us in the New York public policy community.  They are well-intentioned, even if some of their choices may be different from the ones we might make.  Here is what was reported on the site BlueAvocado.org…

Rockefeller Foundation and NY Times Win “Just Awards”

Other industries have their “Worst Dressed” awards, the “Golden Fleece” awards for public waste, and the Ig Nobel Prizes for dubious science-related achievements that “first make people laugh, then make them think.” Until now, the nonprofit sector has lacked its own such award program. The new Just Awards have announced the “winners” for the first year’s awards: one for Abominable Press Coverage of the Nonprofit Sector, and the other for Narcissism in Philanthropy.

Award for Abominable Press Coverage

For Abominable Press Coverage of the Nonprofit Sector the Just Awards panel of judges chose Stephanie Strom’s November, 2009 article in the New York Times: “Charities Rise, Costing U.S. Billions in Tax Breaks.”

The article reported that the I.R.S. approved 99% of applications for charity status last year, and picked some easy targets to suggest that there are too many nonprofits, and that many or most of them are frivolous.  The article asserts that the U.S. government lost $50 billion in taxes due to donations given to nonprofits . . . making the false assumptions that a) contributions to the nonprofit sector would remain the same without the tax exemption, and b) government could ignore the enormous financial impact of demand for services (such as emergency room visits) that would inevitably follow from fewer nonprofit programs. A better headline: “Charities Rise, Saving U.S. Billions.”Furthermore, the article neglected to provide, as a basis for comparison, information on the many billions more in tax breaks provided to the commercial business sector.  The article can be found here.

In making the Award, the judges did praise the New York Times for covering the nonprofit sector, and Stephanie Strom as “generally a very good reporter.” But judges felt this story was the “worst story of the year” and that its lack of research led to ”bad journalism.” A better headline, said one of the judges, would have been, “Charities Rise, Saving U.S. Government Billions.”

Award for Narcissism in Philanthropy

For the much-anticipated Narcissism in Philanthropy Award, the Just Awards panel of judges chose the Rockefeller Foundation, citing the “overwhelming and relentless promotion” of its president, Judith Rodin.

Additional research confirmed this consensus among the expert judges based on their experiences and observations. A comparison was made of online mentions of three top foundations and their presidents: the Ford Foundation and Luis Ubiñas, the Kellogg Foundation and Sterling Speirn, and of course, the Rockefeller Foundation and Judith Rodin. Looking only at mentions since 2008 (when Ubiñas, the newest of the  three, started his tenure at Ford) we find that, in proportion to their online mentions in general, Rockefeller promotes its president more than 12 times as often as Ford and more than 176 times as often as Kellogg.

Runners-up

As a runner-up to the Abominable Coverage of the Nonprofit Sector Award, the panel chose to cite “all of journalism” for the coverage of ACORN over the past several months. “It was a giant frame piece,” commented one of the judges.

And the judges chose two funders as runners-up for the Narcissism in Philanthropy Award. One is a California community foundation that gives out approximately $4 million in grants each year, and is building an “$8 million plus headquarters.” The nominating statement commented, “They are openly touting the building and have architects’ plans displayed in their offices for nonprofit grantees to see as they grovel for grants of $5,000 and $10,000.”

The other runner-up is a large bank that gives out funding based on American Idol-like popularity contests where nonprofits must urge their supporters to vote for them on the bank’s website. Judges noted wryly that this type of giving is a demonstration of  “successful corporate philanthropy,” which inherently involves large doses of self-promotion.

The Just Awards are sponsored by Blue Avocado and Nonprofit Online News. Nominations were received from the public; a nominator was required to submit his or her name to the sponsors, but could request anonymity in public. Winners were notified of their upcoming selection but did not respond by press time. For a complete description of the awards and a roster of the panel of judges, please see www.justawards.org.

So, PPC-NYC folks, what do you think?  Does our community need something like this to keep us honest and humble?  Or is this just mean-spirited and unnecessary?