Interesting problem highlighted in the Chronicle of Philanthropy's January 10, 2008 issue.

The problem: arts orgs get more money than social service orgs.

Hm, does unequal distribution of wealth ring a bell? Does the idea that the "haves" give to the "haves" seem familiar? I mean really: to say it is surprising or upsetting to find that social service orgs get way less money than art groups, particularly during hard times is in itself surprising and upsetting.

A trend this is not. What successful social service groups must do is make sure that their "stuff" rings a bell of meaningfulness to prospective donors. This is after all a market driven economy and market rules means interests rule. Let's not weep over what indeed is sad and should be unacceptable but instead, let us seek stronger connections that move the "haves" to understand why the "have-nots" are important to the continued prosperity of the "haves".