Too Many Non-Profits?
Vermont has some 2800 non-profit organizations. They are either mission-driven or survival-driven. They either focus on achieving their stated mission or on covering their overhead. There is a great deal of mission overlap and contiguity in Vermont’s many non-profits. Competition is healthy in the for-profit sector but merely duplicative in the non-profit sector.
Some of our most vital non-profits began as the benevolent vision of an individual. Sadly, it takes more than a dream to fulfill mission in the non-profit world. It takes money. There are 650,000 people in Vermont and 2800 organizations competing for their generosity. Chittenden County has recently experienced over forty capital fund drives.
Is this healthy to let “natural selection” take its course as it does in the for-profit world, or is there a more strategic approach that might make best use of our limited philanthropy and the vast reserves of volunteerism for which Vermonters are famous?
At the very least there is a strategic opportunity to share and reduce overhead among similarly positioned non-profits. The Vermont Historical Society, the Vermont Arts Council, the Vermont Humanities Council, The Vermont Folklife Center, Historic Preservation, all struggling to fund mission and overhead, might consider combining those overheads, using their amplified scale to achieve cost reductions that would accrue to the benefit of their unique missions.
As these cultural non-profits extend their reach and mission onto the Web, they are being called on to acquire very expensive technology to archive, serve and navigate their broadband assets like recordings, documents, photographs, artwork, artifacts, databases and films to provide better access to classrooms, researchers, interested Vermonters audiences well beyond Vermont’s borders. Will each try and raise the money to acquire this technology when one properly designed system could serve the needs and assets of all? Does each organization need a unique financial manager when the combined revenues of all four are less than a small business? Mission must remain sacred, but who cares about overhead?
Share accounting, non-mission-based personnel, common space, office technology, class rooms, exhibition space, server technology, and contracted services.
Maintain unique missions, directors, governing boards and program development staff.
Much of Vermont’s work is accomplished by non-profits operating in healthcare, culture, the environment, education and social services. It is critical that non-profits conserve energy and resources to accomplish mission.
Boards and Directors of all Vermont non-profits must look inward and assess how hard they are working at mission and how hard they are working at survival – salaries and overhead. An honest accounting of revenue allocated to mission versus overhead is a key indicator of an organization’s intrinsic strength. A development officer hired to fundraise for his or her own salary and that of the Director is not a healthy sign.
Some non-profits are ego-driven rather than mission-driven. The founder/director sets the mission, selects and tolerates a Board as required by law, and sets and drives his or her agenda. Board members, often friends or family, watch. No Vermonter should sit on the Board of a non-profit who is not willing to constantly to reassess the societal value of the mission and hold the Director accountable to that mission, regardless of whether or not they are also the founder.
The Legislature has a study group exploring this issue. It is our hope that they will look large and explore better ways to capture the intelligence, good will, hard work and generosity of Vermonters and create a leaner and more effective community of non-profits.
Bill Schubart is President of Resolution, Inc. and has chaired several Vermont non profits. He is currently Chair of Fletcher Allen Health Care.
6:51:59 AM 
|
