There is nothing said in the piece offered today that couldn't have been said 45 years ago, albeit only one frame of reference. That was when the so called Great Society was launched when LBJ was in office. The issues that Katherine Rosqueta mentions now as the focus for "high impact philanthropy" were the issues then that in large measure led to a spasm of legislation and subsequent community-based programs to ostensibly alleviate poverty.

What we have, in effect, is stasis, punctuated by some current day permutations associated with the greed of the financial services parasites. My point is that those amongst us for whom (what we choose to label as) democracy does not work well remain at the heart of the stasis. Seems to me that any legitimate effort at high impact philanthropy -- the sector has always been good at trotting out catch(y) phrases -- must take into account the pursuit of genuine change. If the assetted/capitalized (grant making foundations) do not push for policy change to at least ameliorate the privation of those who are and have been poor, then this is reflective of anything but change.

As a former staff member in a major community foundation, and now a consultant & trainer working with nonprofits to help them develop their resources, I know enough about the foundation realm within the nonprofit sector to understand that those individuals & corporations privileged enough to have created their own foundations are generally involved in little other than maintaining the economic status quo.

A couple of other thoughts: how will micro-lending, assuming its successes bear up, ultimately lead its practitioners to compete in the marketplace marked by rampant corporate consolidation? and does it make sense to emphasize the confluence of the practices of such a market with the missions of legitimate nonprofits whose "bottom line" must be a definition of change(success)among the people for whom they exist? Why emulate, if you will, capitalism with so many of its uglinesses apparent in the current economic upheavals and downturns in a nonprofit arena where public benefit should be paramount? Doesn't seem to me that this is the stuff of common ground.