Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The trouble with non-profits

aaronsw.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 85 posts

Re: The trouble with non-profits

#41

Post by smhinsey »

netsp wrote: post #9

Does anyone have a recommendation for a charity with demonstrable results in improving the lives of people in a measurable way?

I'm not sure if this qualifies as measurable, but the ICRC does a lot of good in a lot of really bad places, and they produce testimonial and other documentation of what activities they can publicly document. (As you may or may not be aware, it's their policy to hold all reports of detainee treatment in strict confidence. Their site can explain why this is better than I can.)

Re: The trouble with non-profits

#42

Post by baran »

This is one of the reasons why non-profit companies are flawed. There are no incentives in place for monetary gain. Non-profits are good at raising awareness, not being a sustainable entity.

If someone wants to make a difference and change world (especially developing countries), I believe there has to be financial incentives : social entrepreneurship.

Re: The trouble with non-profits

#44

Post by stcredzero »

fatdog789 wrote: post #14
russell wrote: post #3

I take his essay to mean that, if you want results, measure results and hold them to it. Chess experts are experts because they are measured by their results. Political pundits are hit hit or miss because they are not held accountable for their results. Non-profits should be measured by their results, not their process, PR, or grants. Makes sense to me, but quantifiable results are often hard to get, witness the disc…

How do you measure the "results" of a non-profit, when most of them work in non-quantifiable fields? You end up with the quantity versus quality argument, favoring large, superficial efforts over narrowly tailored, substantive efforts.

I've been involved with a couple of music/culture related 501-c3 non-profits that had very quantifiable results: class enrollments, ticket sales, sales of music CDs, and awards won by participants in international competitions.

I would say that both of them do extremely well in the non-quantifiable quality department as well.

Re: The trouble with non-profits

#45

Post by stcredzero »

joanna wrote: post #21

Another important thing to remember when comparing non-profits and companies is the power of the customer. Companies go bankrupt because the customer has the power to discontinue their patronage if they deliver a product or service poorly (unless there are anticompetitive practices in play - ahem comcast). However, in the non-profit world the recipient of the service or products has very little power to motivate a ma…

Companies go bankrupt because the customer has the power to discontinue their patronage if they deliver a product or service poorly

This definitely happens to many kinds of non-profit!

in the non-profit world the recipient of the service or products has very little power to motivate a market.

For 501-c3 organizations that provide classes, lectures, and performances, often the opposite is the case. Many non-profits have to be run much like a business. There can be something like a marketplace where the "customer" pays not with currency, but with their time. (And sometimes, both money and time are involved.) Also, very often, the "recipient" of services can easily directly involve themselves with running the organization. (KPFT radio in Houston is an example of this.)

Re: The trouble with non-profits

#46

Post by billswift »

rapind wrote: post #38
Dove wrote: post #6

> This isn't to say that we should have companies replace nonprofits Yes we should. Charities I donate to are selling me a product just as much as companies I buy from. That the product is a better world--by some measure that seems reasonable to me, rather than a simple benefit for myself, matters not a whit to my decision making process. I don't give without a very concrete understanding of what the money will be us…

For-profit companies selling you goods and services often spend enormous amounts on marketing, advertising, and branding in order to convince you to part with your hard earned money. This doesn't mean their product is any better than their competitors though. It just means they've spun you into believing it is. While I think it's a good idea to research your charity or donation to a non-profit, I definitely do not th…

Marketing, advertising, and branding is a MUCH larger part of what non-profits sell than it is of what commercial operations with an actual product sell.

Re: The trouble with non-profits

#47

Post by daydream »

netsp wrote: post #7

"This isn’t to say that we should have companies replace non-profits..." Actually, that is not necessarily a good thing to just sidestep. A lot of things that non profits work on might work better if they were worked on by companies. A lot of things that companies work on might have to be filled by non profits if companies weren't doing it. Think of second hand stores. They are often run not-for-profit in order to pr…

One useful way of thinking about nonprofits: a nonprofit fills a need that the free market on its own cannot meet.

For example, the free market will not provide free meals to homeless people with HIV in Manhattan.

Nonprofits should not be made into businesses. If a business can fill a need and turn a profit at the same time, great (in most cases)!

Re: The trouble with non-profits

#48

Post by billswift »

baran wrote: post #42

This is one of the reasons why non-profit companies are flawed. There are no incentives in place for monetary gain. Non-profits are good at raising awareness, not being a sustainable entity. If someone wants to make a difference and change world (especially developing countries), I believe there has to be financial incentives : social entrepreneurship .

If you can't make money doing something, is there any good evidence that it is worth doing at all? Leaving aside goods with "free" competition from the gov't (schools, roads, libraries, etc). EDIT: Also leaving aside things you do for your more direct benefit, like growing your own food or contributing to open source projects you use.

Re: The trouble with non-profits

#49

Post by SapphireSun »

joanna wrote: post #21

Another important thing to remember when comparing non-profits and companies is the power of the customer. Companies go bankrupt because the customer has the power to discontinue their patronage if they deliver a product or service poorly (unless there are anticompetitive practices in play - ahem comcast). However, in the non-profit world the recipient of the service or products has very little power to motivate a ma…

What if you had some kind of nfp evaluating nfp that would help a person who wants to donate decide what is effective?

Re: The trouble with non-profits

#50

Post by anamax »

stcredzero wrote: post #45
joanna wrote: post #21

Another important thing to remember when comparing non-profits and companies is the power of the customer. Companies go bankrupt because the customer has the power to discontinue their patronage if they deliver a product or service poorly (unless there are anticompetitive practices in play - ahem comcast). However, in the non-profit world the recipient of the service or products has very little power to motivate a ma…

Companies go bankrupt because the customer has the power to discontinue their patronage if they deliver a product or service poorly This definitely happens to many kinds of non-profit! in the non-profit world the recipient of the service or products has very little power to motivate a market. For 501-c3 organizations that provide classes, lectures, and performances, often the opposite is the case. Many non-profits ha…

>> Companies go bankrupt because the customer has the power to discontinue their patronage if they deliver a product or service poorly

>This definitely happens to many kinds of non-profit!

Unless I missed the sarcasm, it doesn't happen with charitable non-profits. They die when funding dries up, and since their customers don't provide funding, their customers have little/no effect on their survival.

Yes, a charity can continue to exist long after folks stop showing up to receive services.

Post reply on HN