This is extensible well beyond non-profits. The general form is still rough in my mind but it is something like "avoid situations where accountability and feedback mechanisms are not essential parts of the environment"
The trouble with non-profits
11–20 of 85 posts
Re: The trouble with non-profits
#12Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having worked extensively with not for profits, the biggest problem is the lack of accountability - this has as much to do with governance as metrics. Managers often have a say in the appointment of board members whereas at least power ultimately rests in shareholders in for profits. Then there's the problem of changing missions - take the number of family foundations that would have their original benefactors appall…
microfinance is an area where this debate is raging Can you show me where?
Google "commercialization" and "microfinance" - a debate that's directly related to "social metrics"/"social impact" - you should find a number of forums (consolidated at nabble; but there are also a number of articles that you can find at USAID funded http://www.microfinancegateway.org/)
Re: The trouble with non-profits
#13Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having worked extensively with not for profits, the biggest problem is the lack of accountability - this has as much to do with governance as metrics. Managers often have a say in the appointment of board members whereas at least power ultimately rests in shareholders in for profits. Then there's the problem of changing missions - take the number of family foundations that would have their original benefactors appall…
microfinance is an area where this debate is raging Can you show me where?
[deleted]
Re: The trouble with non-profits
#14I 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.
Re: The trouble with non-profits
#15Does anyone have a recommendation for a charity with demonstrable results in improving the lives of people in a measurable way?
Homeboys Industries, in Los Angeles, which has been very successful in transforming ex-gangbangers and low-income youth into productive members of society.
Legal Aid (anywhere) assists asylum-seekers, wrongfully evicted tenants, and indigents needing legal services.
Microfinancing (non-US operations) in India, China, and the Southeast have done so well that the pioneer of microfinancing received a Nobel.
Re: The trouble with non-profits
#16I would argue that there is a second, equally-important, albeit interrelated, problem with non-profits in general: they are highly risk averse. Many non-profits still operate under a create an endowment and dispense funds to proven -- or at least perceptive -- good projects model. Consequently, there is a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality, which is to say weak experimentation.
I should mention that most of my non-profit experience deals with medical research foundations. Political think tanks are limited by the general impossibility of proving all but trivial problems.
Re: The trouble with non-profits
#17"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…
The difference between a well-run non-profit and a well-run business: the non-profit puts 100% of profits back into its operations, while the business may re-invest the profit or distribute it to its owners.
Most states already require non-profits to operate like businesses; indeed, non-profits are expected to operate better than businesses -- most states require non-profits to maintain levels of capitalization that require devilish efficiency and reuse.
Re: The trouble with non-profits
#18As a board member of two very active nonprofit organizations, and former board member of another, I really appreciate the suggestion to devote attention to demonstrable results. I'll bring that up at our next board meeting for each organization. It's easy to track membership, and reasonably routine to track member satisfaction in membership organizations, and some organizations set policy goals (within the scope of the IRS rules about political activity by some kinds of nonprofits) that are verifiable. But, yes, organizations doing work far from most supporters (e.g., foreign relief organizations or missionary organizations) often can gain funds for years without having to show results. It's regrettable when a willing donor isn't giving money to best effect.
Re: The trouble with non-profits
#19Does anyone have a recommendation for a charity with demonstrable results in improving the lives of people in a measurable way?
Nearly any education reform organization that gets parents talking to other parents through channels not controlled by schools. Often parents can do a lot of self-help without public resources as soon as they can compare notes about what works to help children who need help. Setting up an email list and moderating it can be just about free, and often has great effect.
One example:
Another example:
http://www.mcgt.net/index.html
A third example, with more expensive programs besides the kind of program I just mentioned:
http://www.davidsongifted.org/
After edit: To relate what I say here to what was said in the submitted article, an organization that gets all of its members talking to one another freely through one-to-many, many-to-one, and one-to-one channels available to all members gets a LOT of feedback that other organizations don't get, and learns what works and what doesn't work.
Re: The trouble with non-profits
#20> 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…
It's worth noting that "non-profit" doesn't always translate to charity. Microfinance, for instance, exists as a whole spectrum of quasi-for-profit operations. And on the strictly non-profit side you have things like ROSCAs, one of the foundations of microfinance, which are micro-level, semi-formal, non-charitable "non-profit" groups that resolve a number of different financial issues for participants, similar to tiny credit unions, and are neither charitable nor reasonably mappable to "companies."
The whole impetus behind the growth of the microfinance movement is that traditional banking simply can't serve these groups. There are also numerous non-obvious major core issues involved, such as how gender roles have a huge impact on microfinance or why group lending is so prominent.
In short, the reason it's not simply handled by companies is because it's just not that simple.