What leaped out at the Nonprofiteer from Sunday’s New York Times column about the need to create different measures for nonprofit results than for for-profit results (query whether saying everything over and over and over and over and over and over and over again until it’s nothing more than a dull roar of nonsense is original to our sector or borrowed from theirs):
A majority of foundation leaders polled in the studies acknowledged
that unrestricted operating funds were better and more effective for
grantees. But they continue to focus their grant-making on project
support, they said, because they prefer its clear-cut results and
because their boards often mandate project support as a way to show a
foundation’s prominence in a specific funding area.
Translation: We only appear to be in the business of helping operating charities solve problems. Our actual business is burnishing our founder’s image so you think of how he succors widows and orphans rather than how he creates them.
Really, there’s no insult the Left could muster to describe huge concentrations of private money that wouldn’t be dwarfed by the disgraceful actions of the people ostensibly in charge of giving those funds away.