Philoptima

Good For The Goose; Good For The Gander?
Martin Lehfeldt
Posted on Saturday, August 1, 2009

Well, it’s happening again. We’re wallowing in rough economic waters, and so a lot of folks are writing and talking about the need to promote the mergers of not-for-profit organizations. Much of this learned commentary seems to be coming from the foundation world.....................I’m not going to enter that debate in this blog, but it’s got me speculating about a possibly related and possibly heretical topic: the merger of grant-making foundations. Why shouldn’t the same arguments in support of cost-cutting and efficiency that are employed to promote the merger of health facilities or human service organizations apply to foundations as well? Think of all the dollars now spent on foundation office rent, salaries, travel and publications being converted into grants. Might not the consolidation of foundation assets enable these institutions to gain a better return on investment and perhaps to make larger grants with more impact?....................I know, I know. Nobody wants to give up power and independence and turf. But that’s what foundations say when they discuss the reluctance of not-for-profit grant-seekers to merge their operations....................Assuming that my concept has any merit, I wonder what it will take to overcome the reluctance of philanthropoids even to consider its inherent benefits. Is there a large foundation out there that will have the gall to make a tender offer to a smaller one? Or would that move be interpreted as a hostile takeover? (Sounds a lot like Wall Street language, doesn’t it?) Is there a group of smaller foundations whose trustees might realize that they’re all supporting essentially the same programs and could better serve the public good if they consolidated their efforts? Is there a regional or national association of grantmakers willing to reserve some time at its next conference to promote some serious discussion about this topic?.................... Tough economic times should provide the occasions to re-think what we do and why we do it. Sure, some not-for-profit organizations probably should heed the call to merge, but the foundations who are offering that challenge might also think about taking it to heart themselves.
No of Comments: 3
  • Well said, Martin. We must practice what we preach.
  • Tom Keith
  • Posted on Monday, August 17, 2009
  • While I think the idea of foundations merging does occasionally have its place - as with the case of the merger of two community foundations in the Hampton Roads area of Virginia recently - I believe that being small and nimble is something of great value in the philanthropic sector. This is especially true in the South, where there are fewer foundations per capita and more small towns and rural areas that need them. Sorry, but the idea of consolidating philanthropy sounds to me like consolidating school districts — and idea where bigger may be more efficient, but it's almost never better for those it's meant to serve.
  • Betsey Russell
  • Posted on Monday, August 17, 2009
  • Nice, But No Motivtion-----Martin has joined the ranks of sensible observers of the nonprofit scene who think we can improve our efficiency and impact if only we could reduce duplication or slim down the overhead. While this makes a lot of sense, it won't happen. Unlike the rough-and-tumble world of business, we are missing an essential gene in our DNA that makes efficiency important. Competition. Without it, we lack the Darwinian force of natural selection and while "the common good" should motivate us, what we really lack is the noose of bankruptcy. But, it doesn't hurt to at least hope that our ideals aren't really the last thing on our minds (just behind getting to that big new donor ahead of the next guy). BRH
  • Dr. Byron Harrell
  • Posted on Saturday, August 1, 2009

    Post Comment





    Philoptima