The trouble with non-profits
aaronsw.com
The trouble with non-profits
1–10 of 85 posts
Re: The trouble with non-profits
#2This is also interesting in how it relates to the study of airplane crashes and the strong, relatively immediate feedback that these provide. It seems that auto safety was much more slow to catch on, and required odd forces to bring the topic to the forefront.
This also has an interesting interaction with a small startup essentially searching for the important metric for its survival.
Re: The trouble with non-profits
#3I 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 discussions here about how to to tell goo programmers from bad.
Re: The trouble with non-profits
#4This is also interesting in how it relates to the study of airplane crashes and the strong, relatively immediate feedback that these provide. It seems that auto safety was much more slow to catch on, and required odd forces to bring the topic to the forefront. This also has an interesting interaction with a small startup essentially searching for the important metric for its survival.
For profits have the benefit of having profit/positive cash flow as a guide that not for profits do not. These are probably much better metrics for small startups given that success in any stated altruistic endeavours are ultimately going to show up in these two metrics anyway (and must in order for a startup to be sustainable).
Re: The trouble with non-profits
#5I 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…
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 appalled (e.g. Ford, Rockefeller, etc.)
And then another problem with metrics is that there has to be a cost benefit at some point. Obviously some are better than others, but if the cost to measure is as much to achieve, is it worth it? Though this may say as much about the mission as it does about the metric (microfinance is an area where this debate is raging).
Re: The trouble with non-profits
#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 used for, any more than I buy stock without a concrete understanding of what I'm buying and for how much.
By all means, sell me peace, charity, and goodwill! Perhaps that will motivate you to learn how to produce it, and to convince me that you have done so.
Re: The trouble with non-profits
#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 provide cheap stuff to poor people. These compete directly with commercial low cost stores and other second hand stores. If these beat the non profits, there is no societal loss. One of the worlds most celebrated not for profits, the Grameen Bank provides small loans to poor people. It seems very possible that this NGO (and its many imitators) will be put out of business by commercial banks.
The UN has started a free online University to help the world's poor. I would take an either-or bet on for profit variants making a lot of progress on this issue commercially.
A great way of making non profits more like chess masters is making non profits into businesses. You don't always have to. But if it is feasible, its worht considering.
Re: The trouble with non-profits
#8[deleted]
Re: The trouble with non-profits
#9Does anyone have a recommendation for a charity with demonstrable results in improving the lives of people in a measurable way?
Re: The trouble with non-profits
#10I 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…
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?