Handling Non-Profit Freeloaders
Handling Freeloaders
Abramson and McCarthy’s chapter on Infrastructure Organizations (IOs) takes a look at a subsector of the non-profit that, quite frankly, I had completely overlooked. When I think about the third sector, it never occurs to me to include the non-profits that serve non-profits.
Throughout this chapter the authors consistently lament the fact that IOs face two incredible hurdles to their long-term success; the subsector orientation of many nonprofits and the difficulty of getting individual nonprofits to pay for the services provided by IOs.
To the first challenge (the subsector orientation of non-profits) I would suggest that any organization providing a service or product that duplicates an existing service or product should identify their value-added. IOs that cannot demonstrate to non-profits how they can add value should seriously question their mission.
The more difficult challenge is the second one; getting individual non-profits to pay for the services provided by the IO. This problem results in non-dues-paying nonprofits enjoying the collective goods that the associations (IOs) provide to the dues-paying members. I don’t think it is possible to completely eliminate “free riders.” However, I do think that there are some things that IOs can do to help reduce the number of non-profits who won’t pay their own way:
1. The authors mention that some IOs look to the larger, very well-established and moneyed non-profits to carry a large portion of the financial load. This allows smaller non-profs to be members without struggling to cover as much of the cost. I think use of a sliding-scale method for assessing membership dues is fair. But I would perhaps take it a step further by establishing an “adoption” or “buddy” program that partners big non-profs with tiny non-profs so that more of the smaller non-profs who perhaps cannot afford to pay the association dues can be involved.
2. The authors also mention that many non-profits want to be good citizens and will pay their membership dues as a show of solidarity. Solidarity (or the desire NOT to be seen as a freeloader in the non-profit community) makes for good publicity. With this in mind, IOs could provide a public list of those non-profits who are dues paying members. This list could be included in their annual reports, fund-raising programs, advertisements, website listings, etc.
3. Association fundraisers are another way to raise money to provide membership scholarships for smaller non-profs that cannot pay the membership dues.
4. Create meaningful incentives for those non-profs that pay the membership fees. Make it worth their while to pay the dues!
Abramson and McCarthy’s chapter on Infrastructure Organizations (IOs) takes a look at a subsector of the non-profit that, quite frankly, I had completely overlooked. When I think about the third sector, it never occurs to me to include the non-profits that serve non-profits.
Throughout this chapter the authors consistently lament the fact that IOs face two incredible hurdles to their long-term success; the subsector orientation of many nonprofits and the difficulty of getting individual nonprofits to pay for the services provided by IOs.
To the first challenge (the subsector orientation of non-profits) I would suggest that any organization providing a service or product that duplicates an existing service or product should identify their value-added. IOs that cannot demonstrate to non-profits how they can add value should seriously question their mission.
The more difficult challenge is the second one; getting individual non-profits to pay for the services provided by the IO. This problem results in non-dues-paying nonprofits enjoying the collective goods that the associations (IOs) provide to the dues-paying members. I don’t think it is possible to completely eliminate “free riders.” However, I do think that there are some things that IOs can do to help reduce the number of non-profits who won’t pay their own way:
1. The authors mention that some IOs look to the larger, very well-established and moneyed non-profits to carry a large portion of the financial load. This allows smaller non-profs to be members without struggling to cover as much of the cost. I think use of a sliding-scale method for assessing membership dues is fair. But I would perhaps take it a step further by establishing an “adoption” or “buddy” program that partners big non-profs with tiny non-profs so that more of the smaller non-profs who perhaps cannot afford to pay the association dues can be involved.
2. The authors also mention that many non-profits want to be good citizens and will pay their membership dues as a show of solidarity. Solidarity (or the desire NOT to be seen as a freeloader in the non-profit community) makes for good publicity. With this in mind, IOs could provide a public list of those non-profits who are dues paying members. This list could be included in their annual reports, fund-raising programs, advertisements, website listings, etc.
3. Association fundraisers are another way to raise money to provide membership scholarships for smaller non-profs that cannot pay the membership dues.
4. Create meaningful incentives for those non-profs that pay the membership fees. Make it worth their while to pay the dues!
posted by Anonymous @ 11:25 AM
2 Comments:
At 5:07 PM, October 30, 2006,
Paul Jonas said…
When I wasn't working at Haven Hospice, I was working at a healthcare administrative IO, called WellFlorida. They took care of administrative duties for various nonprofit healthcare organizations and programs. www.wellflorida.org
This experience played to both of Gina's comments. One: they definitetly needed a PR campaign, especially for awareness in the general community. Two they were rather well ingrained with the County of Alachua and a number of other counties.
WellFlorida is a much smaller IO. I'm not sure how much they charged for their services, but it seemed like there were always issues that stemmed from dues and freeloading, while they really wanted to stick to their mission, money (as with many NPOs) was tight.
While these suggestions are good. I don't think there is any time or financial resources to research, understand the problem and act on it to get it solved. There is rarely enough money in a budget to do any extra work besides adhere as much as possible to the mission.
There are often tough decisions to make, but if you don't have enough people on board that are with you
At 5:09 PM, October 30, 2006,
Paul Jonas said…
(Whoops)
, you won't be able to fulfill your mission at all, regardless of whether they are freeloading or not.
Post a Comment
<< Home