|
|
|||||
|
|||||
| Path: Main Street : NewsWeek : Op/Ed : Audience Opinions |
United Way of Greater Toronto President Anne Golden recently said, "I don't want to sound hard-hearted, but the funding environment has so changed that not every charity, because it's a good idea, can survive. You'll be giving less and less to more and more until finally you'll be doing nothing about everything."As funding becomes even tighter, can we expect a wave of dissolutions and mergers in the charitable sector? In the longer run, will this be a good, or bad, thing?
I tend to agree with Anne's comment regarding the current funding environment and its adverse effect on some worthy causes. As a student of Georgian College's new Fundraising and Resource Development program I see a growing need for trained practitioners in the area of fund development. I believe many non-profits have to accept the challenge that the current environment gives them and develop a strategic vision that will enable them to become "thrivers". Unfortunately, those that don't properly articulate their vision may not survive in these challenging times. Many organizations that have competed for dollars in the past may well have to look at forging strategic partnerships in order to secure long term survival. If these improved relationships can ensure programs don't dissolve and then the end client will be the beneficiary.Ron Patterson
I have to agree with the comments below by Kristin Duare McKinnon, but I would take the discussion one step further. Why should we be willing to let charities die at all?As governments have cut back all manner of funding and social services, we are told that the "private sector" or "charitable sector" will replace lost resources. Obviously Canadian business isn't overly interesting in supporting Charities (compared to their American counterparts). Individuals in Canada have always given generously, but with 10% unemployment we've probably hit the limit.
I do not believe that that our only alternative is to kill off charities in a "survival of the fittest" style. Instead we should be actively lobbying business AND government to pay their fair share and play a leadership role.
Remember - the minute that you begin to believe that you don't deserve to survive is the minute that you've given up hope.
Barry Rueger, CKCU Radio Carleton Inc.
Yes I agree that there will not be sufficient funding for all good charities to survive. There is a need for mergers to happen and for funders to make sure that those agencies that are part of the infrastructure of charities do remain funded. The playing field needs to be levelled so that some charities that are getting significant money today because they were around at the beginning of time and were always funded need to share with the newer groups that are providing as good a service or better.Information Niagara
A trend toward dissolution and mergers has already begun in the charitable sector - as witnessed within organizations such as the VON and Children's Aid Societies. As governments experience "merger mania," this mentality has filtered down to the charitable sector. This trend is seen by many as only a good thing - a fiscal "survival of the fittest" so to speak - a process of selecting charities that are the most financially efficient to continue to receive our dollars and provide our services.This survival mentality is easy to believe. It often seems that several charities provide the same services or work toward the same goals. The "survival of the fiscally fit" seems the logical answer to avoid this apparent waste, particularly when so many charities are appealing for public dollars.
As with any issue though, the answer is never black and white. There are pitfalls to "merger mania." By focusing exclusively on the bottom line, we are missing what is most vital in the work we do - quality of service. Does it only matter who can deliver the cheapest program or produce the slickest fundraising campaign? I hope that the quality of our services is at least as important. Bigger isn't necessarily better.
Another danger of this trend of mergers and dissolution - and the losses that result - is the sacrifice of responsiveness to our client's needs. Paring down the charities available to help pares down the choices and alternatives available to our consumers. This effect can be particularly devastating to clients who have turned to specialized organizations for the help they need - for example, immigrants, Native people, lesbians and gays, and clients living in rural areas. As many of these charities are smaller, they are at risk to be the first to go in our current fiscal environment.
But all is not lost. I believe that there are actions that we can take in the charitable sector, to fight the Darwinism that is prevailing. We can develop partnerships within our sector (and with business) to work toward our service and fundraising goals; evaluate and assess our services as a regular part of the work we do - so we can PROVE we do the job well; communicate in a united voice with the public so they trust that their donations are put to good use, and understand why there are so many requests for their support. I also believe there should be more study before a new charity can establish itself to determine whether the human and financial resources they'll need can be better spent to support a charity that is already established. Reaching these goals is an ongoing challenge, considering how overworked we already are - but I believe that we can get there.
Kristin Duare McKinnon KDM Program & Management Services
About CharityVillage | Free Newsletter | Media Centre | Contact Us
Terms and Conditions of Use | Privacy Policy © CharityVillage Ltd. All rights reserved. Email help@charityvillage.com