Starting a Charity? Here's an Alternative

At this point, let's take a wider view, and we can see why so many of the foundations are carrying on a dialogue (have you followed this in "Foundation News and Commentary" magazine?) about cooperation, consolidation and coordination of charitable efforts within discreet fields of charitable interests.

Why is it that we have "248" (whatever the number is) human services groups in a city of less than a million people? Why is it that arts institutions duplicate services and vie for the limited money that is available to them? How can foundations, or any donor for that matter, make grants/gifts that use resources wisely and efficiently as well as effectively? In short, how can we rid ourselves of all these little "mom and pop" charities that are sprouting up all over the place demanding financial resources that are already scarce?

I remember that (back in the 1980s) it used to take a couple of years and you had to jump through a hundred hoops before you could get a 501-c-3 status letter from the IRS. Now they give 'em out like candy and figure that if you mis-behave, they'll get you sooner or later, and beyond that taxable interest they really don't mind what happens out there in charityland. So now anybody can be a nonprofit organization.

But what's the alternative? Well, how about changing the way we proceed to the initial concept in the first place, and having those individual founders refrain from the temptation to set up another nonprofit organization just because they have an idea for service? Why not set in motion a series of steps that help such nonprofit founders stop and think seriously about the possibility that seconding themselves to some already-established charity might better serve their interests?

--Why not, for example, have them defend, in some sort of public forum, their plan of service, their plan of fundraising, their tests of the marketplace, the commitment of their initial boards of directors?

--Why not require an initial capitalization that would take the charity through the first three years of service?

--Why not require a start-up to have a minimum amount of fundraising infrastructure in place and, again, a public demonstration that they have the necessary pool of donors/prospects, who not only agree with them, but will financially support them in the future?

There's a concept for a charity start-up that might work a little better, and would avoid fundraising spinout and dysfunctionality due to founder-itis. A little public oversight might, a bit of regulation and a lot of accountability would go a long way to help this over-saturation of the economy with nonprofits.

But to ask, or even demand, this more reflective and collaborative approach of the literally thousands of founders of new nonprofits would, most likely, violate three primary factors:
a. it would violate the individual founder's belief that their perception, their plan, their way of doing things is the right way (This is the "I have a better mouse facilitation method than anybody else" routine);

b. it would in many instances publicly demonstrate the individual founder's inability to deal with, or determination to cut through and cut out, all the politics and problems found in existing charitable organizations when it comes to correcting their problems and making them more effective and efficient servants of the public interest (This is the "I don't have the time, skills or inclination to deal with these peoples' problems in existing charities" view);

c. and it would stymie the ability of the individual to get more immediate personal satisfaction in meeting a problem head-on with action today rather than having to deal with the much slower process of researching and thinking things through carefully and then perhaps deciding that the best approach might be to second oneself to others and to process (This is the "I want my jollies now, thank you very much, and don't get in the way" stance).

But let's move on to the next phase – getting to work as a newly minted nonprofit. What's going on there?