January 07, 2009
New Ideas Shouldn't Necessarily Spawn New Nonprofit Groups
Paul Shoemaker has a simple piece of advice for philanthropists who have new ideas for helping to improve the world — find an existing charity to do the work.
Mr. Shoemaker, executive director of Social Venture Partners in Seattle, writes on PhilanthroMedia too many philanthropists create new organizations when they want to make a difference.
But, in many cases, they would be better able to accomplish their goals if they found an existing group to help take up their ideas for new programs.
“It is much easier to start a non-profit than a for-profit company, but it is much harder to effectively sustain a non-profit over the long-term,” Mr. Shoemaker writes. “When you have a new idea, please be sure to look around to see if anyone is already doing the work you care about; or if there is someone to partner with or someone that might want to take on a new ‘line of business.’”
Does the nonprofit world have room for more charities — or can the existing organizations effectively accommodate new programs and missions? Click on the comment link below this post to share your thoughts.
Comments
Commenting is closed for this article.
Previous: Bill Clinton Urged to Stop Raising Money for Charity Work
Next: Scottish Philanthropist Scales Back Giving
Great advice! Here’s an easy way for everyone to be that philanthropist helping established nonprofit groups… Do all your shopping through www.nonprofitshoppingmall.com!
— mire Jan 7, 11:54 PM #
Are there too many NPOs? Only from the POV of the existing organizations – they don’t want any more kids in the sandbox. It’s impossible to prevent individuals from starting organizations that serve their desire for change. It’s a natural tendency and just as hard to control as any other grassroots effort. And because there are free speech rights connected to the formation of civil society organizations, I would vigorously challenge any more regulatory attempts to restrict their creation. But I know that people who think they have a new idea could work harder, and perform more due diligence to look for opportunities for collaboration with existing organizations. The effort that it takes to start and sustain an NPO is not often acknowledged. I encourage the entrepreneurs behind unsuccessful nonprofit start-ups to speak up and share their experiences on what went wrong.
— Nonprofit Professor Jan 8, 01:23 PM #
I couldn’t agree more! There is a regrettable amount of overlapping efforts in the NGO world. Too many organizations are working on the same things, in slightly different ways, in a competitive manner. Is this really how to accomplish one’s mission goals of serving the world? No. Cooperation between organizations, and collaboration and learning from each other, that is how we will truly and finally be able to make the differences that NGOs have been trying to achieve for decades. Hitching new horses to the same busted cart isn’t going to move us forward any faster.
— Stephanie Jan 8, 01:41 PM #
This issue has been coming for a very long time – basically uncontrolled creation of nonprofits with very little oversight or meaningful regulation. Our donors should NOT be OK with the amount of money that disappears into administrative expenses when multiple NGOs pursue parallel paths.
— Jeanne Jenkins Jan 8, 01:52 PM #
From the Lightning Rod Blog at www.maguireinc.com, March 30, 2007
Too Many Charities?
With the number of US charities now past one million — and counting — I’m hearing more and more pundits and self-appointed watchdogs saying that there are too many of them. “We’ve got 700 breast cancer related organizations in this country” said Trent Stamp of Charity Navigator to the New York Times recently. “If there were less there might be more money for a cure.”
Really?
Personally, I think that those who believe there are “too many” charities are mistaken. Individal acts of charity are manifestations of “the better angels of our nature,” as Lincoln put it. But charitable organizations exist not only to organize our angels but also to experiment with them to determine which of the myraid possible combinations of organized good work work best. That’s work better done by thousands, not hundreds. And a byproduct of all that activity is that it “pollinates” society’s collective conciousness on the possibilities of doing good. In other words, organized charities’ most important contribution is not as “service providers” (though that’s a nice side benefit) but rather as “incubators.” In fact, once they have raised our conciousness about an issue, and demonstrated a model successful enough to address that issue that a majority of us agree on, then it is probably time for them to dissolve and let the government run the model. I’m serious. That’s how alms houses morphed into Social Security and how charity hospitals morphed into Medicare.
Too many charities? That’s like saying there are too many businesses, too many entreprueners, too many dreamers. Charities are not like factory-farmed vegetables, best planted uniformly and thus harvested “efficiently.” No. Charities are more like wildflowers — unruly, opportunistic, cross-pollinated, and mostly short-lived. And beautiful. Let millions bloom.
— The Untied Way Jan 8, 02:10 PM #
I agree fully! I live in DC where there are more than 60 literary-focused nonprofits in one Ward alone (serving less than 100,000 ppl collectively). At this point, everyone in the city should be able to read and yet DC still has some of the worst literary rates in the country.
Unlike businesses, there are no market forces that naturally drive nonprofits out of business – they just limp along for years until/unless someone finally gives up.
I don’t think that the number of nonprofits that can operate should be regulated on a hard and fast basis, but those who want to start them should be strongly advised to seek out collaborators first. In addition, existing nonprofits need to be more open to new ideas and business models so that people can actually bring their great ideas to fruition. And if they need to start a new org after that due diligence, so be it!
— Marie Jan 9, 11:50 AM #
Redundant organizations begun by celebrities and sports figures immediately come to mind. When missions overlap with multiple, existing groups’, then one must question whether the primary goal of founders is to make a real difference. From a steady stream of news reports identifying “problematic” charities and foundations started by famous folks, it seems like too much is spent on nepotism and administration instead of programming and outcomes. At some point in the lifecycle of an organization, shouldn’t someone draw the line on what percentage is too much, similar to the tests for what is a publicly supported charity?
— Lori Jan 15, 09:19 AM #