On Leadership
Video | PostLeadership | FedCoach | | Books | About |
Exploring Leadership in the News with Steven Pearlstein and Raju Narisetti

Light on Leadership

Service deserts in nonprofit-land

The nation's nonprofit sector is a leading indicator of economic collapse and recovery. It tightens first as anxious donors hold onto their dollars, and rebounds last as anxieties finally fade.

In between the starts and stops, the sector bears the brunt of increasing demand, budget cuts and delayed payments. Reserves begin to disappear, credit lines evaporate and volunteers become clients. Asked to do much more with far less, many nonprofits end up trying to do almost everything with nothing.

The nonprofit sector is not about to disappear, of course. It's a major industry in its own right with 11 million employees, 63 million volunteers and $1.5 trillion in annual income.

Nevertheless, there is growing evidence that many nonprofits closed their doors over the past three years, while others are about to do so. In 2008, I estimated that 100,000 of the nation's 1 million tax-exempt nonprofits could go under during the recession. Those exits may or may not be offset by the creation of new nonprofits, but there seems to be little doubt that much of the deforestation is now occurring in low-income communities where service deserts are swallowing up thousands of relatively small community-based organizations. If we could map decimation by census tracks, we'd see the deserts popping up in all the familiar neighborhoods--the ones where the most vulnerable Americans live.

These deserts would be easy to spot if the Internal Revenue Service more closely monitored the state of the sector it regulates. But the IRS doesn't care much whether nonprofits live or die as long as they follow the law and file their annual reports. The IRS knows exactly how many organizations have been given tax-exempt status over the years, but readily admits it doesn't have a clue how many have gone under. Nonprofits are under no obligation to tell anyone when they close, and Congress and the president don't seem to care. If thousands of nonprofits have failed these past three years, as House Speaker John Boehner might say, 'so be it.'

The brutal reality is that the nonprofit sector is nobody's business in federal, state or local government. Other industries have their own promoters in government, but not the nonprofit sector. Other industries also have their own committees in Congress and tireless, well-funded lobbyists, but not the nonprofit sector. Other industries have their White House czars, carefully crafted logos and dutiful political champions, but not the nonprofit sector.

Although well-known charities such as the Red Cross, Salvation Army, Girl Scouts, American Cancer Society and Care have all taken hits over the past three years, it's the small community-based organizations that appear to be most at risk. They often operate at the margins, neither too large too fail nor too small to eek it out with a little help from the United Way. They are the go-to agencies for everything from early-childhood education to HIV/AIDs prevention, but are on the chopping block in every state.

Many of these nonprofits are still hoping for a miracle, even as they continue to hollow out their organizations with job cuts. But even if there is a miracle, it will not come soon enough to save them. The federal stimulus is gone, donors are still assessing the damage as they set their payout targets, angels are few and far to be found, and volunteering is still flat.

Moreover, there's strong pressure to reduce the number of community-based nonprofits. Between 1999 and 2009, the number of nonprofits soared from 600,000 to 1 million, driven in part by a desire to help the needy and in part by government contracting. Some of these nonprofits started in a niche and remained there, while others continue to duplicate services available around the corner. Even the sector's strongest advocates have come to believe that there are just too many nonprofits.

The question is not whether it is time for a winnowing, however. It is already underway and will likely accelerate as the economy continues to waffle between recovery and reversal. Nor is the question whether the nonprofit sector could benefit from its own round of consolidation, administrative streamlining and performance measurement. Even the nonprofit sector can use an overhaul.

Rather, the question is whether the nonprofit winnowing will come through a deliberative process or the kind of scrum that prevailed as the House attacked the discretionary budget two weeks ago.

The prevailing wisdom these days is that survival of the fittest should take its course, the only problem being that the fittest may not be the most valuable. There are some nonprofits that are extremely strong but no longer relevant, and others that are very weak but intensely important for strengthening communities, delivering services where no other resources exist and serving as harbingers of the social trust that Robert Putnam wrote about in Bowling Alone. Strengthening weak but important nonprofits is an imminently better investment for the sector than allowing moribund, perpetuity-seeking nonprofits to survive.

Picking the right nonprofits to sustain while easing out the nonprofits that long ago forgot why they exist is both difficult and painful. But it is the only way to assure that the sector retains its longstanding commitment to fill the gaps created by market failures, antiquated government programs and needless delays.

That means engaging the sector's leaders in a courageous conversation about how to prevent service deserts as the budget cutting continues. It is what the Obama administration has tried to do in sorting its cuts in the federal budget, and what the House ignored. Once the deserts have taken hold, they will be painfully hard to reverse.

By Paul Light

 |  March 10, 2011; 9:59 AM ET |  Category:  Economic crisis , Nonprofit leadership Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: The fog of government: What to do about bureaucratic overlap | Next: The RSS feed for this blog has moved


Please email us to report offensive comments.

I moved to CA from PA in 2007 and found temp work (admin) from early 2008 until the end of 2009. I had never been an "assistant" anything before but passed the tests and took the work. In 2010 all I did was work for small non profits, which I enjoyed more. Now I'm starting my own non-profit, with it's own revenue stream. Since I'm not working full time, I volunteer more - not less. Non profits will struggle, die and grow again just like other businesses. Just dont' make assumptions about them - since as the article says, no one is really "regulating" them anyway. Perhaps a good thing, hate to tie up staff that could be keeping an eye on the bandits at our BANKS!

Posted by: madlyf | March 12, 2011 9:38 PM

I wish more people would distinguish between small non-proifts that do thankless jobs for the little people, and big non-proifts that serve more as trade associations representing the well heeled organizations. Very few of us in the small organizations make anywhere close to our corporate peers, and we have less benefits to boot. However, we believe in what we do, so we get a psychic income if you will.

Many npos are saving taxpayer money, as MikeG6 wrote above. Every time my organization helps a low income person detect cancer we save taxpayers and hospital patients money by catching the disease early when treatment is much cheaper than late stage treatment or expensive end of life care.

Posted by: outragex | March 11, 2011 8:23 PM

Meh. So many people in non-profits essentially pull down six-figure salaries either directly or indirectly from the federal government. Especially in D.C. It's time they be winnowed out.

Posted by: cklsdjsd09sdf90sdsdksdlk | March 11, 2011 3:33 PM

Thank you for bringing attention to this issue. We all need to realize that much of the work being done by non-profits is saving us in the long run. Decreasing donations and cuts in government funding may seem like savings now, but down the road they'll cost us. Adult-to-youth mentoring is a great example. It takes only a few thousand dollars per child to run a good mentoring program and the kids in those programs are less likely to use drugs, to fight, to skip school. Mentoring gets their lives on track. It costs about $50,000 to keep a person in prison for a year. Now, not every child waiting for a mentor is headed for prison as an adult, but many are, and its far less expensive to help them now than to lock them up later.

Posted by: Mikeg6 | March 11, 2011 1:36 PM

As an employee of a small non-profit, I can share that my organization has been gutted due to increasingly scarce donor dollars. We've taken large pay cuts and still had to lay off our administrative support staff, which leaves the program officers spending time on unavoidable office admin and not performing the mission-critical work the funders want to support. Several around us have been forced to close shop, and we're hanging on by a thread. Moving to the private sector is hard because as one informational interview told me "corporate looks for corporate". The recovery can't come too soon.

Posted by: WorldCup | March 11, 2011 11:03 AM

Post a Comment

characters remaining

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company