Source: Philanthropy Round Table
Some philanthropists argue that transparency is not always an effective tool for the purposes of foundations, particularly when they are awarding grants to organizations that might not be approved otherwise, say foundation leaders at Oklahoma State University.
There may be something important to closed deliberation and action that allows foundations to award important grants without political intervention and “external influences.” Often times foundations are more focused on external influences and the risks for their reputations instead of focusing on the merits of a project that is applying for a grant.
Organizations need to find a way to strike a balance, “shifting back and forth to optimize results in different circumstances,” reports Philanthropy Roundtable.
If foundations can occasionally shield their decisions from the public eye, then they are also able to shield those decisions from meddling influencers.
However, in refusing to be transparent, the integrity of a foundation might be at stake and their openness and honesty in their decision-making, as viewed by the public, could suffer. Furthermore, research has shown that foundations that embrace transparency do so for the benefit of their potential grantees.
Read full story at: Philanthropy Round Table