October 19, 2009 | Read Time: 1 minute
Do most charities fail to show that they create benefits for society?
A foundation consultant argues that point and has stirred up a debate as he calls for more rigorous evaluation of nonprofit groups.
On the Philadelphia Social Innovations Journal, David E. K. Hunter, former director of evaluation and knowledge development at the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation, lays out what he calls “unpleasant truths” about charities.
No. 1 is perhaps the most controversial.
“While nonprofits work incredibly hard, with passion and dedication, and often in incredibly difficult circumstances to solve society’s most intractable problems, there is virtually no credible evidence that most nonprofit organizations actually produce any social value,” he writes.
Because of this problem, he says, donors must embrace “social investing,” which requires a rigorous selection process, as well as tracking charity efforts and what they accomplish, providing assistance to help the organizations improve their ability to offer services, and helping them build alternative sources of revenue.
Sean Stannard-Stockton, a philanthropic adviser and Chronicle contributor, writes on his blog that he supports the idea of social investing, but worries Mr. Hunter’s advice will get lost in his “nihilistic claim that most nonprofits and the social sector as a whole is not currently producing social value.”
Laura Deaton, a nonprofit consultant, also challenges Mr. Hunter.
“I simply don’t agree that the nonprofit sector is as broken as he asserts,” she writes on Nonprofit Local, a Web site she helped create. “For every example of ineffective programs, there are others that can demonstrate real impact.”
What do you think? Is the nonprofit world as ineffective and damaging as Mr. Hunter says? Click on the comment button below to share your views.
