June 12, 2007 | Read Time: 1 minute
Several philanthropy blogs have been carrying on a vigorous debate
over how best to measure whether nonprofit groups are successful.
The debate started after a venture capitalist commented at the recent NetSquared technology conference, “Some nonprofits just suck.”
Some people thought the comment was just a statement of fact, arguing that some groups do perform poorly—and deserve to be shut down. But others thought it was inappropriate to phrase the problem that way, especially at a conference attended by nonprofit workers.
Since then, the conversation has veered in several directions, as described by Sean Stannard-Stockton, author of Tactical Philanthropy.
The bloggers have been discussing whether a nonprofit group is more “sustainable” if it earns income as opposed to relying on donations, and whether grant makers and charities should weed out underperformers by giving money or offering subsidized services only to nonprofit groups that are effective.
Tactical Philanthropy offers links to the blogs and comments that have been discussing the issue.
What do you think is the best way to measure a group’s effectiveness, and what should be done about underperformers?
Share your thoughts by clicking on the comments link below this posting.
