Penurious To The Point of Poverty

So it's come to this.  According to the Chronicle of Philanthropy and other observers, foundations increasingly won't make grants to sustain charity operations.  Many United Ways now take the same position.  They want to fund "programs" that have "metrics" to engender "measurable solutions" for "community problems."  But nobody wants to pay to keep the lights on.

The same dynamic operates at the individual giver level, too.  Donors equate "low overhead" with "program efficiency," even though the two usually have little in common.  And there are plenty of self-appointed "watchdogs" and "consumer advocates" around repeating the low overhead mantra as if it were gospel.

I'm not saying low overhead shouldn't be a goal.  I'm just saying that the nonprofit sector had better wake up and deal with this over-emphasis on program to the exclusion of operating expenses.  If the overhead doesn't get bought, the program doesn't get done.

This should be self-evident, especially to institutional funders like foundations and the United Way.  But they're like everybody else I guess.  Like the song says:  Everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die.

Comments

[Maryjane Link]

I share your angst - really burns me that people will readily buy us new
computers, but won't fund salaries for people to use the

[David Levy]

It's awful, I agree. But skillfully drawn "program" grants can usually contain enough overhead to keep the lights on. The federal grant financial form, which contains about a hundred line items, is especially designed to attribute more to overhead and expenses than most grant applicants can ever imagine. These are real expenses, but many grant applicants do not realize how varied and comprehensive those line items are in the federal financial grant outline. Patrick, do I make sense? I am not a businessman, but I have seen this work. Still, if you think I am wrong, let me know.

[George Zaksek]

Patrick, you bring to light several interesting issues concerning the work of charitable organizations. Operating grants have long been a part of their work. These so called "watchdog" groups appear not to understand the dynamics of placing donated humaritarian relief supplies in projects around the world. I know of an agency that received such a donation (over $1M) and by the time the project was complete had incurred nearly $30K in costs--nearly half in grants from partnering agencies to place the relief supplies. The agency had a choice--either try and network to raise the funds for the project or tell the corporate donor "Thanks but no thanks--we are unable to accept your donation". Another instance involves a program of gleaning the left behind fruits and vegetables of farmers for distribution to area food banks and pantries. In this instance however, the program officials had the foresight to make available grants for operating the vehicles and personnel to administer the program. It was a win-win program. Bottom line, it is not enough to say here's a donation of medical supplies or here's an educational camp program and walk away. There must be cooperative efforts in the non-profit sector to effectively provide for the operation of these programs. You've nailed it for all of us: "If the overhead doesn't get bought, the program doesn't get done."

[JAMES T. REYNOLDS]

For over 36 years I have worked in the nonproit charity field and have tried to answer the invitation of Pres. Ronald Reagan when he asked for volunteers and charity organizations to take on a greater share in helping the poor and needy. I cannot recall any individual in need complaining because there were too many organizations wanting to help.
As to there being too many charities, I feel there should and will be many more, but more so in the area of compassionate care. I believe we are all our Brother's Keeper and that we will find those nonprofits who espouse the mission of releiving the immediate burdon of our neighbors, will discover themselves reaping the greater rewards of public support.