Is survival making not-for-profits lose perspective?

When we talk about the social sector we think of charities, not-for-profits, community groups and social enterprises. What we expect of them is a strong commitment to their charitable purposes, their social mission. The need to survive has meant that not-for-profits have had to quickly adapt and during this process they have either sunk or survived at the cost of their integrity. Only a few have managed to hold steadfast to their charitable purposes, being brave enough to weather the changes that were inevitable. 

If you are not familiar with the sector, to survive the social sector needs funds, these funds are acquired through donations, contracts, grants and fundraising activities. Increasingly commissioners ask for evidence that means that charitable organisations are run like a business or a public sector organisation - from business continuity planning to a sound financial portfolio.  

I am a steadfast believer in processes, systems, quality, evidence-based decision making and impact management. I love all these concepts. They remove the ambiguity of human emotions, biases, minimising the scope for discrimination and favouritism.  

Over the last 5 years new language has been introduced into the social sector's management thinking and their organisational communication. There's been an influx of terms like KPIs, SLAs, targets, reporting, compliance, business ready, corporate, project management, PRINCE2, ISO 9001 etc.  

I am concerned that many small not-for-profits are daunted by public and private sector terminology. I am also concerned that the message is lost in translation, the value of having processes and systems is overshadowed by the terminology. It's not only the fear of the unknown but also the illusion of exclusiveness these terms create, like there is a "secret power" generated by it that only higher beings can understand.  

I've worked with a few small not-for-profits and have had conversations with their leaders about their sustainability. Pam, a trustee of a small not-for-profit was struggling to get other trustees understand that they needed a "business" plan. She faced resistance because they weren't a business. They are a community group that received some funding that required them to register as a charity and to operate at a level that satisfied the public sector funder. I could feel Pam's frustration. I suggested we change the terminology. She was sceptical. We renamed the "business plan" to "planning our community group". (I know, not rocket science!) Pam presented this at the next board meeting and, guess what, they immediately were willing to listen to her and move on from the argument of "why a business plan" to "how do we go about planning". 

This is just one example.  

A not-for-profit must stay true to its charitable purposes while being agile and process driven. Staff are expected to be passionate about the charity’s mission and yet the message they receive within the organisation by their leaders is SLAs, KPIs, compliance...etc. Like the leaders of not-for-profits have now become an extension of the commissioners. Sometimes, it is used as cover, something the leaders of not-for-profits hide behind, churning out the same verbiage, parroting commissioners/ funders in some cases not really understanding it themselves. 

I understand that it is a matter of survival for charities to demonstrate that they are as competent as their private and public sector counterparts. And there are cost savings and efficiencies to be had.  

I’m not saying that not-for-profit SMEs shouldn’t have processes and systems, what I am saying is that why do they have to use terminology which is entrenched in the private and public sectors which detracts from the benefits of having processes and systems, alienating its staff? 

 Ask anyone working for a not-for-profit, what their motivation is? Why work for a not-for-profit where the pay is low, and the perks are almost non-existent?  The predominant motivator is the charitable aims, the change it aims to bring to society, the difference it makes to people’s lives. 

As an employee of a not-for-profit if my work with beneficiaries doesn’t align with what is expected of me by my leaders then that begs the question, what am I doing working for one?

Let me illustrate this with an example, 

On a public sector contract, a not-for-profit is commissioned to offer therapy. One SLA (Service Level Agreement) is to generate 50 new referrals a month, out of which 80% will be assessed within a week of when the referral was received. This is cascaded to their staff in the same words.  (Major switch off!)

(This is a simplified figure for illustration purposes and not representative of any existing public sector contracts). 

What if this was reworded to... 

Our mission is to work with people to improve their mental health and well-being (charitable purpose) our commissioner is aware that there’s an increased need in our community (commissioner’s not an abstract harsh taskmaster). We want to offer support as soon as possible ideally within a week of when they contact us. (Bringing in the SLA) What can we do to ensure that the people we are here to serve can access our services. (Collaborating with the team/ promoting service to generate referrals).

When staff don’t meet target, ask questions–  

Internal Focus - 

• Does the team member need more training? 
• Why are people not accessing our service?  
• What do we need to do to ensure they are aware of our service?  

External Focus - 

• Can we collect more evidence to demonstrate to budget and policy makers that they may have got their intelligence wrong? 
• What data are they basing their decisions on?  
• We know our community best (assuming that’s why they want to work with us) so why does our experience on the ground not match what they are commissioning us to deliver? 
• And what can we do about it?

If not-for-profits can’t stand up for their own charitable aims and fight the corner of their beneficiaries, then they may as well be a subsidiary of the commissioners. The fight can be lonely but if a not-for-profit is passionate about the sheer purpose for it's existence, then it will prevail. And if there is no need for it anymore, surely that means the not-for-profit has met its purpose?

What do you think? Pop your thoughts in the comments.