The opening paragraph reads:
"There has been a major change in philanthropy in recent years. Accountability and impact are increasing the demands placed on charities because the purpose of charity from the donor's perspective has changed. It's become acceptable, in the name of accountability, for philanthropy to be about receiving rather than about giving. Hypervigilant and misapplied accountability risks killing the soul of philanthropy upon which charities rely for support."I will add to that the charge that this hyper-vigilant accountability is killing the ability of small, local, and grassroots nonprofits to operate at all. The costs of compliance are out of line with the costs of providing needed services, leaving these organizations no options but to either merge with a larger organization or close their doors.
As Mr. Wyland states, the IRS, and all the various nonprofit watch-dog groups that analyze our IRS filings, all base their evaluations on data that is "overwhelmingly financial in nature... As long as every transaction is documented and as long as no one's enriching themselves at the charity's expense, the IRS and the watchdogs are satisfied."
But what happens to the small nonprofit whose administrative expenses seem too high only because of an effort to comply with all the data collection, analysis, and reporting requirements of their funders? The same funders who will then use that nonprofits' high administrative expenses as a reason to discontinue funding them.
In another recent post here, I called out Paulette V. Maehara (president and CEO of AFP) for admonishing nonprofits to "put the needs of donors first." I believe that we've coddled and begged and babied the donor foundation long enough. We need to educate them about the needs of our clients, and how they are best served by locally provided community-based nonprofits, and, perhaps, on the true definition of the word "charity."
Oh my goodness, Ken, you are right on. Thanks for putting this challenging reality check out there. From all of us who often work with community-rooted organizations, keep it up.
ReplyDeleteThis is often the same problem many nonprofit managers encounter with their own boards. Lacking any other concrete measure, boards (often comprised of successful business people) use fiscal metrics and other statistical measures that often miss the point. I work in theatre, and the second runner-up behind the budget as a measure of performance is ticket sales. No where in our mission or objectives do we state that we will balance our budget every year, that we will not use reserves to cover operating expenses, or that we will sell X number of tickets in a given year. However, these are the measures that our company's performance are measured by 90% of the time.
ReplyDelete