I was sitting in a meeting of young professionals last week and the subject of nonprofit organizations, donations, grants, fundraising and raises. Moreover, the continuing issue of concern to me (ethics, governance and accountability) was also mentioned. However, I found the thought of the group of young professionals to be fascinating, though the time and very seriously: the nonprofit organizations that are "irrelevant" or "duplication" are no longer needed in our communities, are the funds other, possibly more viable, needs and should not be expected to survive.
Interesting!
As the debate progressed, it was clear that young professionals have truly taken the "media" (LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, etc) as their media. They do not attend meetings – and do not join the community of organizations – which were the pillars of the past. This puts a large number of nonprofit organizations in jeopardy. Where are the leaders of tomorrow? How does the mechanism of "social marketing" finding their way in the process of governance needs of nonprofits? Countless articles have been written about the poor who continue to spiral downward for the nonprofit organizations in the (charity) sector.
And carefully, this group of young professionals as "survival of the fittest" is very appropriate, especially in this economic climate.
When you stop and think about it, young professionals are correct – even by the standards of the "old timers" (like this author). We have seen the proliferation of nonprofit organizations, compete, fight and fuss, refuse to collaborate and provide "services" that are no longer beneficial for the community. Curiously, the communities have not proactively get rid of irrelevant and duplicate nonprofits. Apparently this is because even the most irrelevant and duplicate nonprofit organizations still have some minimal interest from fans (and funders).
So what makes the Center for Ethics, Governance and Accountability (CEGA) recommend?
Well, for starters, our attention has always been CEGA on ethics, governance and accountability – and will remain so. If a community or a donor or a nonprofit organization that will focus on the "responsibility" of the equation, not to identify issues of "irrelevance" and "duplication" between the nonprofit sector?
Certainly!
Nonprofit organizations are very skeptical of the measurement of results – the results – but results. Why? A simple answer: the results speak directly to the viability and success of the nonprofit organization as a measure against its mission. CEGA advocates a proactive approach to accountability, arguing that the nonprofit organizations that can demonstrate excellence in accountability (and ethics and good governance) should be above their peers on stage increasingly difficult fundraising.
What is the difference between the "results" and "outputs" as instruments of accountability?
Using an example of a nonprofit job training, "results" in general, measure the number of participants in the program, along with program costs, etc. However, to make the move to "results" of the organization would have to track the number of program participants (products) that actually (a) successfully completed the training, (b) where there are jobs that pay a living wage, and (c ) stayed employed for a period of time. Now, that accountability!
Let’s look at the two ends of the spectrum of the obvious third sector organizations.
The government (federal, state and local), the process used to distribute the funds, is a facilitator of the production-based measures. A good example is the long-standing concept of "Community Action Agency and its variety of funding mechanisms that" automatically "the flow of these groups every year. Many of the community action agencies of the funds actually codified in federal and state laws. Opponents of community action agencies argue the point of the "irrelevance" and "duplication" arrived long ago. Make no mistake that accountability is implemented through audits of the agency community action programs, but the audit can only be as good as the necessary measures.
While it is impossible to match the numbers, amounts of funds are not creating the desired results. It is time to demand accountability of all nonprofits.
By contrast, individual donors and foundations are free to make contributions to the nonprofits of their choice, using whatever measures they deem appropriate. Therefore call for greater accountability by nonprofit organizations and increasing the accountability of funders.
We must think about the merger of nonprofits like?
Most of the discussions that have participated over the years that relate to "duplication" of the activities of nonprofit organizations have similar focused primarily on the issue of "job protection" for the executive director. While this is totally predictable, it should be recognized that questions relating to the conduct of the missions of nonprofit organizations are not easily resolved and can never be enough people to do the job. The merger of similar ( duplicates) and agency programs seems a very sensible way of addressing the needs of the community and the individual protectionism among CEOs and board members have longstanding ties to an organization, despite the possibility that organizations are either "irrelevant" or "duplication" with the objective reviewer.
So where do we go from here?
Undoubtedly, the debate among young professionals in the meeting I attended was thinking. There is no better time than now for nonprofits to look inside, take the house in order, to cooperate with organizations of their peers, and conduct themselves in a manner consistent with the privilege granted by the IRS charitable designation.
Related posts: