Paul Brest, CEO of the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, has posted a series of blogs about the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy's (NCRP) new publication, "Criteria for Philanthropy at Its Best Benchmarks to Assess and Enhance Grantmaker Impact" on the Huffington Post and is certainly not alone in his critique. The "Critieria" suggests that funders allocate "at least 50 percent of its grant dollars to benefit lower-income communities, communities of color, and other marginalized groups, broadly defined." This approach does not account for Foundations with missions that are designed to accomplish a completely unrelated set of positive changes for the commuities that they serve (e.g. improving the quality of water, increasing access to the arts, and enhancing medical research on key issues). A better lens for a funder's impact would be to track the progress and the types of results that are generated relative to the funder's mission, rather than suggesting that the field conform to a single mission. The NCRP approach would certainly limit the creative and innovative possiblities inherent in philanthropy.