While I understand the spirit of this question, we remain stuck in asking questions from the ''savior'' perspective. I'd rather ask, ''Are you prepared to help communities contribute to making tough decisions in philanthropy? Are you ready to engage and allow them to lead the design and execution of practical, permanent, and tailor-made decisions that only they can make for their communities?'' And the answer should always be, yes. That must always be our organization's 'raison d'être', and the missions we lead. But if we're not willing to think about our work in philanthropy as a privilege that we must always humbly facilitate for others, we'll always battle the same battles with no long-term solutions in sight.

Balancing strategic goals with community needs is definitely tough. It often requires making hard decisions, but in the end, it's about aligning long-term impact with immediate community needs. Strategy should serve the people, not the other way around, and that balance is where real change happens.

Your goals should strategically be aligned with community need. If they are not then your philanthropic practices are harmful and will not benefit the community. So the question should be, do you want to be harmful or impactful?

Goals in philanthropy take their roots from community/ humanitarian needs. As the latter changes/ evolves, goals should be revised and adapted. It is futile pursuing lofty philanthropic aspirations when ground reality has shifted. We understand this about technology, we should also about philanthropy. The level of need will be something when we set out. That could resolve over time, in which case the goal board should be redrawn. In other cases a need can escalate to a dire need, in which case, most focus, efforts and resources should be channeled in that direction. Philanthropy is not about prestige, it isn’t a blue print that’s signed and sealed. It’s a space where flexibility, humility and charity are the looming considerations.