There are about 4,000 to 6,000 cancer-related organizations in the United States and yet, we haven’t cured cancer. Foodbanks cannot keep up with the increasing demand of more people going without a meal. We have growing rates of autism, Parkinson’s and other diseases, more people falling below the poverty line, and many other monumental problems. Over the past decade or so, the number of nonprofits has doubled to 1.6 million. And yet, we haven’t solved these problems. What’s going on?
No Shortage of New Nonprofits
Every month, our marketing agency is approached by people looking to start a nonprofit organization because they encounter one of these types of problems and want to do something about it. And so they think that starting an organization to bring comedians into the hospitals to lift cancer patients spirits will help, or bringing inner city kids boating for day will help. It will help, but not much.
That’s because they are not addressing the fundamental problems — the causes and cure for cancer, in the first case, lack of regular outdoor activities for certain populations, in the second case.
We have enough organizations applying small and ineffective band aids to larger problems. This has to stop. We need to start thinking seriously about how to solve the large problems.
There are many well-intentioned and knowledgable people in the United States ready, willing and able to make a difference. We need to channel these efforts in a meaningful way that will actually go toward solving problems, stemming the causes of the problems, and creating structures to ensure those problems don’t re-occur.
A Radical Proposal
I have a radical proposal toward that end — limit the lifespan of new nonprofits to a certain time frame – say 10 years. This would focus new organizations on adopting innovative ideas in order to actually solve a problem, rather than in merely providing services.
The organizations would be empowered to employ creative thinking, risk-taking, research and advocacy to accomplish their mission of putting themselves out of business at the end of 10 years. It would free them to attract top talent who relish a high level challenge. It would encourage spending in technology and marketing to galvanize people around the cause, and would inspire donors to contribute as they see annual progress toward a larger goal.
At the end of the ten years, the organization would have to document all their research and work toward solving the problem, share it with the general public (including other nonprofits and NGOs, government, businesses, and social entrepreneurs) so that another party can use that information to address the issue. The nonprofit would be allowed reapply for nonprofit status with a new focus based on their learnings and a new time frame. If they do not have any learnings to share or a new perspective or approach on addressing the problem, their application would be rejected.
Bold Thinking is Needed
The nonprofit sector needs this type of bold thinking to break the cycle of merely providing services while the problems grow larger, to break the poverty mindset that stifles innovation, to break the status quo of founder’s syndrome, and most off all, stem the insane growth of competition of small nonprofits vying for the same pool of resources, none of which is going toward solving the real problems.
What do you think? An idea worth considering, or entirely crazy? Let’s start the discussion.
