Too Many Do-gooders?
By Kevin Phelan and Chad Gifford | Boston Globe Op-ed | May 3, 2007
FOR YEARS, generous and philanthropic Bostonians have been increasingly overwhelmed by the growing number of well-intentioned, not-for-profit agencies, which continue to struggle to help the most needy citizens. These agencies have focused agendas on how their particular organization caters to the needs of youth, health, social service issues, arts, education and job training, housing, and community development. With about 5,500 nonprofit organizations in Greater Boston , many of these organizations need financial resources, and it is difficult for donors to know which to support. In many cases, the various youth-serving or service-related agencies are providing duplicative services, resulting in inefficiencies and a senseless competition for dollars.
At the same time that the number of agencies is growing, the number of corporate donors is declining. Over the past decade or more, we have seen a number of mergers. This consolidation is economically inevitable and will continue. In some cases, the new executive offices are outside our region, which limits the opportunity to network among board members and other local leaders. In most instances there is a fair allocation, but we must acknowledge the significant change in the corporate landscape -- and that smaller outfits will be disadvantaged. This process is not unique to Boston -- it is happening throughout the country.
So we have an expansion of agencies at a time when the number of corporate donors continues to shrink. Of course, this comes when the needs have never been greater.
The solution is that Boston must create a new paradigm with interested and strong-willed civic leadership willing to examine this duplication of services. Leaders such as the United Way, The Boston Foundation, the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce, and small groups of others from the profit and nonprofit world must convene and examine the number of agencies that can be the framework of this vital service component. Obviously any commission must involve political leaders, who are familiar with the problems and challenges that exist.
Wouldn't it be great if a university volunteered to tackle this project? It could analyze the services, boards, funding, and director network, while looking at the agencies that make sense to come together. It could deliver these results to the commission, which would navigate the delicate waters of advising mergers.
This can be a painful process but there is no avoiding it. This is surely better than a slow drift and a steady exhaustion of resources followed by a similarly steady disappearance of legitimate agencies and the important services they provide.
This idea has been discussed for many years, but the time has come to recognize the need and get started.
Kevin Phelan is executive vice president of Meredith & Grew. Chad Gifford is chairman emeritus of the Bank of America.