Not long ago in The Wall Street Journal, noted philanthropy expert Pablo Eisenberg recommended changes in major philanthropy (particularly foundations) during these difficult economic times.  In summary, he said foundations are bureaucratic, inflexible and cautious, and too focused on short-term objectives.  Among Dr. Eisenberg's 9 remedies, a few struck me as particularly interesting.

He said major donors should give more money for general operating support.  This is necessary to help charities hire and maintain quality staff, and build organizational capacity.  Special-project funding, he claimed, simply gives foundation more control over the agendas of their grantees, "responsibilities that should be vested in the boards and staff of nonprofits."

He wrote that major donors should make more multiple-year grants, which allow nonprofit organizations sufficient  time and stability to achieve long-range goals.  Helpfully, he does concede that "not all nonprofits merit this kind of financing."  He also argues against only giving out grants two or four times per year.  That kind of schedule may suit donors but puts organizations at an enormous disadvantage, so he recommends a "rolling grantmaking" process.

He observed that only 3-5% of foundation money goes to the poor and truly needy, and he recommended giving to those pressing needs rather than universities and colleges, hospitals, and museums. Citing the Mississippi delta, he also observes that there are large parts of the country that are underserved by philanthropy.  

Dr. Eisenberg is a philanthropy insider, but his article challenges the philanthropic status quo.  These times of economic distress present an opportunity for donors to evaluate their effectiveness, and this article is a good prompt.