I’d like to think the latter as I would agree that foundations do a poor job of changemaking despite being marvelous (and often highly educated and animated) “grantmakers.” So maybe foundations should just stick to doing what they do best … making grants.

As for the “to worthwhile nonprofit organizations” clause, therein lies the rub. We have still not defined — as a sector, as an industry, or as a global community — that which defines a “worthwhile” charity.

Social justice-ites might argue that art museums are largely irrelevant to forwarding humanitarian reforms. The culture community could argue that art is the only language that truly transcends all bounds of nation, race, creed, gender, language, time, generations, etc. and is therefore a crucial charitable endeavor.

As a result of a divergence of definitions, “worthwhile” has been diminished to mean simply a nonprofit organization that has clear goals, effective execution of strategies, and measurement protocols. Sound familiar, CEP?

I believe foundations should lead, follow, or get out of the way. Newsflash … they’re not leading anyone but each other, they never stoop to follow, so maybe they should just get out of the way and allow the rest of us to focus our discussion and energy on the true BIG fish in the big pond … individuals and families who collectively bankroll the bulk of charitable activity and who have no voice of authority or leadership guiding them toward truly considering or effecting change in the world or their community.

Renata Rafferty
http://www.raffertyconsulting.com