New Charity Review Panel vs. Federal Government

When we left you Friday, we had this issue about the funding relationship between a new charity start-up review group and the federal government's fund dispersal procedure. What is to be the appropriate relationship that results in having public funding for the review of new charity startups: grant making, or the regular bureaucratic budget process?

You're probably going to think this is a bit off the wall, but I would opt for the grant making process, and I would do it on a four-year cycle pegged to the off-year elections.

The review agency would have to apply to a specific government department to which Congress would give the oversight responsibility. There would be a consistent application process, and the agency would need to make a periodic report to that department. The grant would be almost automatic, but not quite. There would need to be a periodic, formal assessment of the review agency's work to demonstrate that all those organizations who were reviewed and granted 501-c-3 status in a given period are alive and well and functioning as they should. The funding to do this review and assessment job should be voted by Congress every 10 years, and that vote should be taken in a year when there is no other election.

There are three reasons why I think this would be the best relationship. First, it would keep the review agency honest, in that it would require performance evaluation to be done regularly, and a report made to the public about what's happening in the process.

Second, it would provide the funding necessary to get this vital job of new charity review done effectively and efficiently.

Third, it would periodically raise to public view the fact that nonprofits are there, are working on our behalf, are scrutinized by some government-related agency, and are doing what they're supposed to do.

And, with that comment, I am going to close out this thread of how we might prevent the phenomenon known here in this blog, at least, as "Founderitis." I believe that if we could prevent this phenomenon from occurring it would serve our nation and its very important Nonprofit Sector very well.

I think also that the way to prevent Founderitis is to put the founder on the spot even as the new charity is being founded, and make sure that proper governance is in place by people who are qualified to manage the founder, and by having a fundraising infrastructure in place that will prevent the founder and his/her organization from getting into fundraising problems down the road.

We'll be on to a new theme on Wednesday. No post tomorrow.