Do Nonprofits Compete or Collaborate?
March 31, 2010 at 5:04 pm 3 comments
In tough times like these, many nonprofit organizations are looking for new ways to raise revenue so that we can help the increasing numbers of families in need. When we try to do more, nonprofit organizations find themselves both competing with other worthy groups for resources and collaborating with some of these same groups to provide services and programs to people in need. When it comes to the question of how we compete and collaborate, I think we might have it backwards.
So many of the groups we compete with for resources share similar goals and, often, serve some of the same families. A number of donors have told me that they dislike the idea that charitable groups with similar missions “compete” for their support. Rather than leaving our supporters feeling pulled in separate directions, perhaps agencies with similar missions should be working together to increase the overall base of support. By increasing the number of people who are committed to the well-being of poor families, we would be making the pie bigger for all.
Collaboration for human service agencies often means coordinating the programs we provide. In this way, charitable groups try to avoid duplication of effort or resources. However, this approach to working together does little to motivate nonprofit agencies to improve the effectiveness of the programs we provide. In the for profit world, businesses compete everyday to provide better services at a lower cost. There are real financial rewards for business that find new ways to improve the quality and value of the services they offer. Unfortunately, this is not always the case in the nonprofit world. Too often, we rely on the compassion our donors have for the families we serve to raise support for our work. What would happen if we had to compete for support based entirely on the results of our programs?
Maybe it’s time we flipped our ideas about nonprofit competition and collaboration. In doing so, agencies serving the poor might end up building a broader base of support for our efforts and achieving greater results for people and communities we serve.
Entry filed under: Uncategorized. Tags: .
1.
Ryan Hertz | April 5, 2010 at 6:01 am
Hey John,
As you know, I am totally on board with you on the idea that non-profit efforts to raise community awareness and grow the market for giving can be more beneficial to our community than intra-sector competition for market-share. When non-profit leaders spend time and donor resources targeting funds that are already destined for social programs, we create substantial inefficiencies in reaching community-wide outcomes–unless perhaps a program is so innovative that its potential impact warrants the costs to the philanthropic sector associated with going after money that’s already on the table.
Where I get a little bit lost is when you discuss competing for support based on the results of our programs. I agree with the concept, but what does this look like in practice? Who would decide how results are to be measured, and how results are communicated to the public? How would this approach differ from the status quo of most grant making? Or maybe a better question is how would we avoid falling into the same traps we are already in?
Hope to see you soon.
Best,
Ryan
2.
Dennis Blender | April 7, 2010 at 11:14 am
John,
You are absolutely correct. Unfortunately, it has been observed that there might be even more competition between nonprofit organizations than for profit ones. An unfortunate circumstance.
Boards and leaders of nonprofits need to research ways to truly establish cooperative agreements with others, including mergers. They will be still able to maintain their core values while simultaneously serving the community. They need to embrace the concept of the abundance mentality – working together helps everyone.
Dennis Blender
3.
Lilanni | April 28, 2010 at 7:57 pm
It sounds like what is needed is much like in the research and development field. Collaboration and Innovation. The idea that we can come to the table with similar goals in mind, from different areas or sectors (for example government, academia, and industry) and agree to share our background and experiences and knowledge to combine efforts for the common and greater good. In this case the problem to be solved is how do we get limited resources to the families in need.
Without a complete merger, we can write up fluid agreements to collaborate for a specified period of time or on a particular problem.
And whatever is developed while on the project is shared and not grabbed or claimed by anyone individual participant.
After the collaboration, what each entity takes from the table and then makes out of it as far as future endeavors or efforts is up to them. And everyone at the table walks away cheering for each other.
After all, the reason we are in this business is to help others.
And by leaving territorial mindsets at home and sitting down together to collaborate, we are all helping families who need help.