So You Want to Start a Nonprofit?

Yesterday, I tweeted out a link to the Donor Dreams Blog, asking "What do you think? Are nonprofits not "playing nice in the sandbox"? http://ow.ly/c2acO" In that blog, the author, consultant Erik Anderson, asks:

... Why is it that every time someone has a new idea, they want to start a new non-profit organization to do it?

I find this knee jerk reaction so interesting and confounding. Instead of starting a new organization, it could be “Ah-ha, I have an idea and think I’ll take it to a non-profit organization in my community that does similar things and work with them on starting a new program.”

... The truth of the matter is that the last thing the non-profit sector needs is more struggling non-profit organizations competing for similar resources. ...

The responses I got back all seemed to agree with Mr. Anderson: "There are too many nonprofits!" I addressed this trite bit of "accepted wisdom" just over six years ago in another posting here, and nothing much has happened since then to change my mind. While many people repeat this line, there is still no empirical evidence that this is actually true.

In all other sectors of the US economy we prize competition and entrepreneurship. But not, apparently, in the nonprofit sector. Elsewhere in this nation, we say, "Build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door." In the nonprofit sector, however, we're supposed to build a better mousetrap and then turn our plans over to the current leading mousetrap provider.

When people approach Mr. Anderson with an idea for a new nonprofit, he says in his blog, "It has become my standard operating procedure to sit down with these nice, well-intentioned individuals who call me asking for help and beg them to please not start another non-profit organization." He wants people with new ideas to get together with existing nonprofit organizations and "play nice in the sandbox."

How would that advice play in other sectors of our national economic landscape? "Gee, Mr. Jobs, why don't you just take your ideas to IBM and help them to develop it?" "Well, Mr. Bezos, people may well want to buy books online, but why don't you just partner with an existing store or distributor?"

How many of our mayors would be re-elected begging entrepreneurs to not start yet another small business in their city? "Another coffee shop? Please, just go be a manager at a Starbucks." "If there were a better way to make a hamburger, McDonald's would have thought of it by now. If you must be an 'owner,' why don't you just buy a franchise?"

This is the USA. We believe that competition is good. It weeds out complacency. It weeds out inefficiency. It encourages constant innovation. And it requires paying attention to constituents. Which of these goals is bad for the nonprofit sector?

Yes, a great number of start-up nonprofits will fail. Just as in the small business sector. And that's not necessarily a bad thing.

I too get many emails and calls from folks who want to start a new nonprofit. Many of them are unprepared. They have not researched the competition. They do not have a realistic plan for roll-out or revenue. They are not familiar with the laws in their state regarding incorporation, required by-laws, etc., etc. But I wish them well.

If you want to start a new nonprofit, go right ahead. But know what you are doing, and why, and where you fit in the marketplace. Then go and innovate.

Too many nonprofits? How can there be too many people working to improve our communities? Or too many groups feeding the hungry, or sheltering the abused? Or too many arts programs enriching our lives? Or too many entrepreneurs stirring things up in any sector of our economy?

The sad truth is most of us in the nonprofit sector only worry that "there's too many organizations going after my grants and donations." I guess we're just going to have to learn to compete.

Market failure and collusion in the philanthropic marketplace

That's a bit of a heady title, but stick with it and humor me for a minute or two longer. I'm going to use a lesson from basic economics 101 to explain why nonprofits are unnecessarily forced spend too much time and energy chasing dollars instead of achieving their missions.

Cast your mind back to college days. and remember that intro to economics class. Remember how the supply and demand curves are supposed to work? In a functioning market, each are at least somewhat elastic. When demand outpaces supply, shortages occur and prices rise till supply can catch up. When supply outpaces demand, prices begin to drop. In each case, the correction (either dropping prices or increased supply) brings the market back into equilibrium. Ta daa! The invisible hand at work.

When these forces fail to bring the market back to a working situation, for whatever reason, the resulting state is called a market failure. One possible cause of a market failure is collusion; where a number of players one side of the equation agree to withhold either supply or demand in order to manipulate the market for their own ends.

Okay, so now let's look at the market for foundation grants to nonprofits. It is an accepted fact of life that the demand far outpaces the number of grants awarded. We know that the rule of thumb is that only one in twelve proposals will be funded (some of us do somewhat better than that, but it's balanced by those who do worse), and that none of us who have been at it long can boast of a perfect record of every proposal funded.

Because of a low supply of grants from foundations, nonprofits pay a higher than market price for searching out, applying for, and managing what few grants are available to them. Economics 101. That higher price nonprofits pay to receive grants has to come from somewhere, so it comes from programs; from mission.

This would suggest that there's a shortage in the supply chain of charitable dollars. But that's simply not true. Foundations are sitting on massive endowments that could satisfy most any nonprofit's needs. These dollars have already been earmarked for charitable purposes and the donors have already received their tax benefits at the expense of the public treasury. So why are they not being distributed?

And that's where the collusion comes in. While the IRS requires that foundations spend out a minimum of five percent of their endowments each year, the majority of U.S. foundations have taken that five percent to be the industry standard (a few notable exception spend at higher rates, and they are to be commended).

In the face of a contracting economy, with rising demand for the social services provided by the nonprofit community matched with fewer dollars to pay for it, this collusion of foundations has become the single largest impediment to nonprofits succeeding at their missions and a danger to the public safety, health, and societal well-being.

Alright. Maybe I'm going a bit too far here. I like to exaggerate to make a point. But the fact stands: In tough times the community of foundations have the ability - and I would argue social responsibility - to step up to the plate and increase the flow of grants.

And, while we're at it, maybe they can cut some of the administrative burden associated with the process. Oops. I know. This time I've really gone too far.