tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2469423763503103632.post9104605012323727383..comments2023-10-22T01:04:39.611-07:00Comments on Holland, 2002: Where’s the love?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2469423763503103632.post-51859361816445931352009-04-18T15:47:00.000-07:002009-04-18T15:47:00.000-07:00hey Dave, on the whole I agree with at least part ...hey Dave, on the whole I agree with at least part of what your saying I think. It's a sad condition when the flow path for people who care is as follows:<br /><br />1) Hey, I don't like that, I should change it.<br />2) I should start a non-profit to actualize my vision legitimately.<br />3) I put 90% of my time and money into sustaining the non-profit I just started<br />4) I'm not even doing what I originally wanted to do anymore because I have to change my mission statement every year to be relevant to my funders funding guidelines.<br /><br />we need a better system than this.Justin Edward Ellishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13159302394778543685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2469423763503103632.post-79593815157874219832009-04-16T21:21:00.000-07:002009-04-16T21:21:00.000-07:00Interesting! I work for a non-profit so my initia...Interesting! I work for a non-profit so my initial gutteral reaction is "what is he talking about?!" But I can certainly see your point in terms of some groups - they are bad at ID'ing the problem enough to strategize towards a measurable goal, and thus their actions are hard to gauge.<br /><br />Some funders, as you point out, don't require specific deliverables for their funds and as a result these groups continue to exist. But I would argue that this is actually NOT the norm. Most funders are quite careful at assessing numbers that represent a specific goal and most non-profits do the same. They wouldn't get citizen support with out.<br /><br />Even TFA, which I personally am not a fan of because of it claims systemic change when really they provide temporary relief, achieves teaching at least on par with existing programs AND breeds generations of "do-gooders," who I would argue have a greater sense of civic duty than if they had gone corporate.kaibabhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11288667610632475776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2469423763503103632.post-58543641346258122072009-03-13T18:27:00.000-07:002009-03-13T18:27:00.000-07:00Dave,Dan hits most of my initial reaction to your ...Dave,<BR/><BR/>Dan hits most of my initial reaction to your post. One question I have hits at the mediocrity factor you mention, because I'm unclear as to whether you're making an assumption with which I would disagree.<BR/><BR/>So, are you saying then, that large-scale nonprofits that attempt to address broader issues, or rather, issues broadly inherently strive for mediocrity when they "settle" for less than great gains? I don't know if I can agree with that, because I would think that the larger the nonprofit's scale, the greater the chance that the impact won't be vertically as deep as it is horizontally wide; this doesn't imply mediocrity, just a different impact method. <BR/><BR/>Obviously local, vertically-associated nonprofits will have a greater impact on a specific cause or community, but I don't think it's fair to interpret this as success or exceptional work while seemingly dismissing organizations like the American Cancer Society, because it hasn't reached it's massive goal of "eradicating cancer." The size of the goal will affect the size of the impact; smaller impacts from larger goal-seekers don't imply mediocrity.<BR/><BR/>Yes? No?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2469423763503103632.post-52061822960070748992009-03-12T07:52:00.000-07:002009-03-12T07:52:00.000-07:00Dan,On the whole, I agree with you. There ARE good...Dan,<BR/><BR/>On the whole, I agree with you. There ARE good nonprofits out there making a big difference (again, Harlem Children's Zone). However, I'll stand by my initial point that excellent, high-impact nonprofits are the exception, not the rule, and the "at least we're doing something" logic needs to be challenged. <BR/><BR/>More and more, I think I am an advocate for small, local, direct service nonprofits that are specific in their goals, sound in approach, and not interested in "scaling programs around the world." <BR/><BR/>Thanks for your thoughts Dan. As usual, you bring a healthy dose of optimism to my hyper-critical lens :)Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02836713793470393978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2469423763503103632.post-41067310607120973682009-03-11T22:00:00.000-07:002009-03-11T22:00:00.000-07:00I agree with the main points you make, but I think...I agree with the main points you make, but I think you're describing a fairly narrow segment of the nonprofit sector and making an overly broad generalization. I would argue that in fact only a small percentage of nonprofits are started by someone with a "new idea" seeking to solve the "most pressing issue" of our time. Those nonprofits may make up a disproportionate number of the "name" nonprofits that we hear about all the time as beacons for the sector, but there are a far greater number of nonprofits and nonprofit leaders who recognize that their mission is not to bring about a broad systems change but rather to provide services that would otherwise not be available to those in need. For example, think of all the Goodwill affiliates throughout the country. Goodwill's mission is to "[enhance] the dignity and quality of life of individuals, families, and communities by eliminating barriers to opportunity and helping people in need reach their fullest potential through the power of work." Year after year, local Goodwills and other similar social service organizations provide a social safety net and have tangible impact on the lives of thousands of the most vulnerable members of our society.<BR/><BR/>Earlier today, I was at a workshop in Wichita with 50 local nonprofit leaders, and I'd wager none of them would claim that their organizations are solving the most pressing issue of our time, but each of them provide services to hundreds or thousands of individuals who would not otherwise have their needs met for employment, mentorship, etc. Could they be more successful and serve people if there were a rational process to incentivize their their impact? Certainly. But it is not true that they don't achieve "real" impact without those incentives in place, and their corner of the world is measurably (and immeasurably) different because of their programs.Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10746154734429921639noreply@blogger.com