Should New Charities be DIS-couraged?

Maybe it's time to summarize this thread?

We've been dealing with a condition I have called "founder-itis." This condition can develop when a nonpforit founder, who also is probably still acting as the executive director, has either set the charity on its present course with a series of well-meaning but inappropriate decisions, or has contributed a variety of management errors along the way that have now resulted in a situation where governance is impossible, fundraising is faltering, and the organization is in strategic trouble.

Part of our analysis of this type of situation demonstrated the role played by a Board of directors that was set up without a written job description or with performance standards and regular self-evaluation. Where job description and performance standards are clearly delineated and provided in writing to all board members, governance is more successful. When this is not the case, trouble can occur.

We found that another contributor to "founder-itis" has to do with the lack of a real managemment team. This may be the result of personal "turf" issues with the founder/executive, or with the lack of a community that is able to stand supportively behind the fledgling charity start-up.

Yet another aspect would be the founders whose planning lacks sufficient study and reflection that then leads to the founding of "another" charity in a given field of work where there are already many others doing the same or similar work – this may be an instance of founding another charity because "no one is doing it the way I can do it."

Certainly, "founder-itis" is exacerbated, too, by a founder's failure to discover, relate to or amass a broad base of community support – both verbal and financial – behind the cause and the mission of the organization.

The results of some or all of these various factors, then, can manifest themselves as lack of true governance and strategic planning; and also as a proclivity for limiting fundraising to "foundation and fun" (by which we mean reliance on foundation grants and special events) at the expense of a broader approach to fundraising that would involve heavier emphasis on individual and family giving. And this, in turn, may occasion, or may even be occasioned by, repeated decisions not to invest in fundraising infrastructure.

It would seem that all these conditions are preventable. And, in fact, it must be said that out of some 40,000 new nonprofit start-ups that happen each year, probably the majority manange to avoid "founder-itis." But how can we help the problem?

Question: should we, then, as a society, let so many of these nonprofits proliferate without some rather stringent guidelines, peer review and regular accountability for management of funds? A charity, after all, is considered a public trust.

How can we build into new charity start-ups the quality of accountability? I think we must do this for the sake of the philanthropic marketplace (both charities and donors), and I'll tell you why in the next post.