Fundatio Diffide et Verifica
Home
Publisher Reliability
Lumen Notitiarum
Fundatio Diffide et Verifica
Home
Publisher Reliability
Lumen Notitiarum
More
  • Home
  • Publisher Reliability
  • Lumen Notitiarum
  • Home
  • Publisher Reliability
  • Lumen Notitiarum

Publisher Reliability Scoring - CBPP

by Quinn T. Sterling*, B.A. (Journalism), M.S.J., MPP

Objective

The Publishers Reliability Scoring pages provides a reference for assessing the trustworthiness of news and opinion sources. Curated by Quinn Sterling* this resource evaluates publishers and authors whose work has been found to lack consistency in accuracy or integrity. When public articles are under review for factual reliability, Quinn examines not only the content but also the track record of its creators—identifying whether their histories suggest balanced reporting or a pattern of selective, agenda-driven publication. This vetting process helps maintain clarity about which sources merit top confidence and which warrant skepticism.


1) The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) - see below

2) Urban Institute (urban.org)

3) ProPublica

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP)

  

Critical Perspectives on CBPP: A Scholarly Review

(for full article with additional critique samples, see here)


Synopsis:


The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) is a prominent Washington, D.C.-based 501(c)(3) think tank founded in 1981. It describes its mission as 'to pursue federal and state policies … designed both to reduce poverty and inequality and to restore fiscal responsibility in equitable and effective ways.' (cbpp.org)
 

While widely cited in policymaking circles, CBPP has also attracted critiques—from methodological concerns to questions about its neutrality, funding, and influence. This article compiles those critiques across three domains: (1) methodology, (2) ideological alignment, and (3) funding and influence.


1. Methodological / Academic Rigor


Critics question whether CBPP functions primarily as a research institution or as a policy advocacy organization.
 

For example, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) argued: 'In reality, CBPP’s paper is a case study in poor research methods, self-referentialism, and confirmation bias.' (https://alec.org/article/center-on-budget-and-policy-priorities-long-on-opinion-short-on-research/)
 

The Tax Foundation also challenged CBPP’s critique of its methodology, calling it 'baseless and hypocritical' (https://taxfoundation.org/blog/cbpp-critique-state-and-local-burden-methodology-baseless-and-hypocritical/).


2. Ideological Alignment and Bias


The site AllSides rates CBPP with a 'Left' bias rating, meaning it aligns with liberal or progressive policy views (https://www.allsides.com/news-source/center-budget-and-policy-priorities-0).
 

InfluenceWatch notes CBPP has been accused of advocating left-of-center policy positions (https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/center-on-budget-and-policy-priorities/). Open Philanthropy’s case study describes CBPP as 'one of the most respected left-leaning think tanks in Washington D.C.' (https://www.openphilanthropy.org/wp-content/uploads/Case_Study_Center_on_Budget_and_Policy_Priorities.pdf).


3. Funding, Networks & Influence


MediaBiasFactCheck notes CBPP is supported by major foundations like the Ford Foundation and MacArthur Foundation (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-center-on-budget-and-policy-priorities/). InfluenceWatch reports CBPP’s 2022 revenue at $80.45M and 2023 revenue at $32.2M, suggesting reliance on large grants. It also highlights CBPP’s coordination of policy advocacy networks, showing its operational reach beyond pure research.


4. Implications for Legal and Policy Use


For legal or policy analysts, CBPP’s critiques imply the need for careful citation and cross-verification. Acknowledging its ideological orientation, funding patterns, and advocacy role can preempt challenges to objectivity. Its data remain valuable, but practitioners should supplement CBPP’s findings with independent, peer-reviewed sources.


References


· ALEC. 'Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: Long on Opinion, Short on Research.' https://alec.org/article/center-on-budget-and-policy-priorities-long-on-opinion-short-on-research/

· Tax Foundation. 'CBPP Critique of State and Local Burden Methodology Is Baseless and Hypocritical.' https://taxfoundation.org/blog/cbpp-critique-state-and-local-burden-methodology-baseless-and-hypocritical/

· InfluenceWatch. 'Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP).' https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/center-on-budget-and-policy-priorities/

· AllSides. 'Center on Budget and Policy Priorities Media Bias Rating.' https://www.allsides.com/news-source/center-budget-and-policy-priorities-0

· MediaBiasFactCheck. 'The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities – Bias and Credibility.' https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-center-on-budget-and-policy-priorities/

Open Philanthropy Project. 'Case Study: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.' https://www.openphilanthropy.org/wp-conten 

Copyright ©2021-2025 Fundatio Diffide et Verifica - All Rights Reserved.

Washington, DC / Padova, Italy

  • Some of Our Members
  • Publisher Reliability
  • Pub Score (Propublica)
  • Pub Score (CPBB)
  • Pub score - Urban Ins
  • Lumen Notitiarum

Powered by

This website uses cookies.

We use cookies to analyze website traffic and optimize your website experience. By accepting our use of cookies, your data will be aggregated with all other user data.

Accept