@dgoomany
I often find myself in heated debates with my closest friends when I say that many nonprofits need to shut down.
Not ALL nonprofits, rather the ones that are not succeeding in their goals. This opinion isn't a formula for making friends. I am often faced with an icy stare and questions such as, “Can you really propose that people should be cut-off from life-sustaining services because you think the nonprofit is doing a bad job? Isn’t it better than the alternative?”
My friends may think I'm an ice queen but their heartfelt arguments dont change my mind. Nonprofits must demonstrate their programs are working in an effective and sustainable manner. If not, they have failed, and need to close their doors, or radically alter their business model. Just OK isn’t good enough-- for the organization, for the clients, donors, and the sector at large.
I understand this idea appears critical of nonprofits providing vital services, but this argument highlights how often a worthy cause distracts us from questioning an organization’s overall value. Meaning, even if a nonprofit is delivering a necessary service, this is not reason enough for them to be in operation. They must prove they are succeeding in their goals and creating an effective service model.
This discussion occurs far less often in the for-profit world, where the cycle of businesses closing and opening is dependent on the bottom line. In the nonprofit world, we have yet to define a standard metric system that holds nonprofits accountable to the same goal (in fact, each nonprofit defines their own.) Thus, we have no method of understanding when a nonprofit fails or succeeds.This system, or lack thereof, is not doing anyone any good, especially the populations these organizations serve.
We are in the next era of philanthropy, where creating organizations with laudable missions are no longer cause for celebration. We need to refocus our energies towards figuring out what works and what factually does not. After all, shouldn’t we be MORE concerned with organizations interacting with vulnerable populations? Shouldn't we be bending over backward to figure out which programs are in fact the best at helping these populations and then, and only then, support them to scale? How can we be happy with services that are just good enough?
"We are in the next era of philanthropy, where creating organizations with laudable missions are no longer cause for celebration... The bar needs to be set higher."
Of course in this post, I'm oversimplifying the many obstacles faced in the process of creating a nonprofit metric system. Also, don't misunderstand that I'm in any way blaming nonprofits. I don't think the burden should fall entirely on already thinly stretched nonprofit budgets.
In a way, we all have a part to play. It is up to the donor to give smarter, the foundation to incentive (and support) evaluation, for other sectors to collaborate and innovate, and for the general populace to value fixing social problems, rather than accepting band-aids.
When failing nonprofits close, other organizations take their place, and a more effective few will succeed. Social innovators, and entrepreneurs will continue to fight and collaborate in order to seek solutions that are better than their predecessors. They demand that the BEST and most effective services are provided to those most in need, and settle for nothing less. In this mindset, we can make a real difference, the nonprofit sector can thrive, and I’ll get to stop arguing with my friends.
