Knowing how long to stay with a particular goal, strategy, grantee or program leader is part of the art of philanthropy. My colleague Terrance Keenan advises that the willingness to stick with a set of issues over a prolonged period is a distinguishing quality of foundations that “really make a difference.”      We have a natural suspicion of staying too long in a particular field, pouring good money after bad, becoming unduly enamored of a favored set of grantees, pushing lost causes or creating undue grantee dependence. At the same time, we recognize the risks of getting out of an area too early, perhaps just short of the tipping point, as well as the symbolic import of exiting a field, particularly for a large foundation like ours. The trick is in the timing. In my tenure we’ve made both errors—staying too long in some arenas and getting out too early in others.      Here’s an example of where we avoided those pitfalls. Among RWJF’s strongest programs, we believe, is the Local Initiative Funding Partners Program. This program works in partnership with local grantmakers to provide matching grants to innovative community-based projects for underserved and at-risk people. It didn’t start out as such a success—in fact, it had some serious problems—but rather than abandoning it, we made some necessary changes. Now it has made almost 200 grants totaling $63 million and has helped establish good relationships with funders nationwide as well as numerous grassroots organizations.      No one can recommend specifically when a foundation should fold its hand and get up from the table. What I can offer are two bits of wisdom gleaned from the past 12 years: 1. Leave the table carefully—foundations generally exit too soon rather than too late. 2. Keep questioning and debating, internally and externally. It is the only way to know for sure when it is time to move on. Page   1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | >> © Copyright 2002 The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Click to read our Web Policies