Should there be a name change for the non-profit sector?

[para transit fellow]

"... In the past few months, I’ve been hearing more and more people suggest that the nonprofit sector should change its name. “Defining ourselves by something we’re not is pretty ridiculous,” said some very smart people..."

http://nonprofitwithballs.com/2015/0...ange-its-name/

What's in a name?

In Alberta, the oil and gas sector prefers to be called the "energy sector." The term "oil sands" is preferable to "tar sands."

These name changes where created with the goal of improving investor and consumer relations.

Is the Calgary non-profit sector being held back because of it's name?

[calf]

I don't think it's the name (although a re-branding wouldn't hurt). I think the biggest problem most non-profits face is how they're judged or analyzed by potential donors.

So often you hear "well, this charity spends X% of their funds raised on administration, so I'm not donating to them". And this is incredibly flawed. All organizations need to spend money on administration. Office space, utilities, general management all cost money, and has a certain baseline amount to keep the doors open. Raise more money to spend more on programs, all of the sudden your denominator changes and the % goes down, but the admin costs haven't changed, and they couldn't have done it without spending a minimum on admin.

That being said, some organizations do over-spend on admin, but the way you see that is how much of an impact the organization has for the money they raise or spend, and showing that they're good stewards of the money being donated. If the donations show a reduction in poverty, more people living in affordable housing, progress towards a cure, then it's money well donated - the split between programs and admin shouldn't matter quite as much if the results are there.

[Weitz]

The link for me is blocked at work so I can't comment on the article.

But I know most people correlate not-for-profit's with Charity's. Would you guys say this is accurate? I know there are plenty of NFP's that have nothing to do with charity so do they get branded like charity's? Is that what the article is alluding to?

[calf]

Originally Posted by Weitz

The link for me is blocked at work so I can't comment on the article.

But I know most people correlate not-for-profit's with Charity's. Would you guys say this is accurate? I know there are plenty of NFP's that have nothing to do with charity so do they get branded like charity's? Is that what the article is alluding to?

It's more about not calling charities charities. These organizations have a mandate to fulfill a societal need, which takes money. Charity, or even not-for-profit, implies a level of poverty or inferiority. A different name would justify or make it more palatable that these organizations are raising and spending big dollars for the work that they do. The author's conclusion is to stick with non-profits, but makes suggestions to "rebrand" as Impact , or For Purpose organizations, as examples.

[Northendzone]

meh, to me a pig with lipstick is still a pig........anyways, i think it is best to try and pick a charity to donate to and make a donation - using admin costs is a hard thing to measure charities by becasue who calculates the number?

i would not expect a charity/non-profit to have offices on the top floors of bankers hall, but i would expect that they have space that is clean and functional in some part of town. i would also expect that they pay their staff members a reasonable wage - in some cases some of these organizations are large - so is it unreasonable that the C-suite ee's are paid 6 figures?

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by calf

It's more about not calling charities charities. These organizations have a mandate to fulfill a societal need, which takes money. Charity, or even not-for-profit, implies a level of poverty or inferiority. A different name would justify or make it more palatable that these organizations are raising and spending big dollars for the work that they do. The author's conclusion is to stick with non-profits, but makes suggestions to "rebrand" as Impact , or For Purpose organizations, as examples.

Or the perceptions of the underlined just bleed over to the new name. Just like it always does.

Whether you want to look at it as "a rose by any other name smells just as sweet", or "lipstick on a pig", the outcome is pretty much the same.

[GGG]

I would like to see the non-profit tag go away with something more accurate but more along the lines of dividing charities from other types of non-profits. I would prefer a division between fund raising companies and actual service providers. A fund raising companies admin costs should be low and these companies should be ranked on a cost to raise a dollar basis. So United Way, the weekend to end, ride to conquers, etc would all be compared as like for like agencies.

Then service providers admin costs could be higher and you could compare those companies based on outcomes.

[para transit fellow]

Re: "lipstick on a pig"

So why do folks seem to look down on the "Pig" we are trying to apply some lipstick to?

[LChoy]

From my own personal opinions, I just find the term very broad.
NFP/NP organizations can be charities, advocacy groups, pseudo government organizations, and other things as well.
All of these organization have the shared similarity in that their funding comes from an external donor.

Reading the article, I agree that there could be a better way to name or classify the organizations that currently fall under the term

LChoy

[para transit fellow]

20 quotes by famous people if they had worked in nonprofit

http://nonprofitwithballs.com/2015/0...-in-nonprofit/

“Remember, no one can make you feel inferior without being related to you and repeatedly questioning why you’re in nonprofit.”

Eleanor Roosevelt

“I have not failed. I’ve just found 10,000 foundations and individual donors whose priorities don’t align with my organization’s.”

Thomas A. Edison

“It’s easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission from the liquor license board for your event.”

Grace Hopper

[para transit fellow]

Is It OK For Nonprofit Leaders to Make Big Salaries?
http://www.joangarry.com/nonprofit-salaries/

(from the article)
Recently, I came across this comment on a Huffington Post article about nonprofit salaries:
“Here’s why I don’t donate to non-profits. There is no legal cap to the salaries paid to executives. Really? Do y’all think I donated to feed the pig CEO, or the needy? See a poor person in the street, give them the money. They may buy a bottle, but at least they will see the money, with no strings attached.”
At some level, he has a point.....

[Locke]

Thats why they're called 'Non-Profits!' After paying their CEOs theres no profit left.

[SeeGeeWhy]

I've always liked the phrase "For Benefit" as an alternative to nonprofit. Means the organization can enter into operations that make a profit but the goal is clearly stated about distributing profits for social benefit.

[troutman]

New name = Coyotes

[Fuzz]

Wolves!

[para transit fellow]

Sometimes I have the image of the vulture picking over remains....