Yesterday, several of you dear readers posted some very thoughtful comments on my post, What Does the Future Hold for Nonprofit Infrastructure Organizations? I think we started a rich discussion not just for ourselves, but for our colleagues that are reading as well. Lots of food for thought as we move forward in this new environment. I wanted to highlight one comment in particular by Nelson Layag, who works at CompassPoint, a nonprofit infrastructure organization based in California. Nelson makes some great points about sustainability, quality, and investing in the future. Let’s keep learning from each other!
I want to quickly (okay not so quickly) comment on the idea that charging a fee excludes small nonprofits. I’ve been with CompassPoint for over 15 years and in its total existence of over 30 years (we were formeley the Support Center for Nonprofit Management part of a network of Support Centers), the model has been to charge for services (in general, there are numerous “free” things we do too). What we charge and how we do it is a constant balancing act of what it takes to be a sustainable organization, providing consistent high quality services, and staying on top and contributing to the thought leadership in the sector.
On Sustainability: As the last poster demonstrated, relying on primarily on private funding (especially if it’s relies just a few) to provide your program services is risky. In my years with CP I’ve witnessed organizations either close their doors or drastically change or reduce what it offers. We haven’t been immune to loss of major funding, but having a diversified revenue structure ensured that we not only maintain our current services, but invest and advance our work in the sector.
On Quality: Charging a fee keeps us “close to the market” and demands high quality that will keep the market coming back. We have to stay relevant. The market will not tolerate anything less.
On investing in the future and other products: Our revenue model (including foundation, govt, corporate, and consumer fees) is made so we can invest in other areas – for example, the study (Leadership Lost) that was a major contributor to all the dollars we are now and have been seeing invested by funders in nonprofit leadership was done without any outside funding. We are also able to invest in other free products like Board Cafe, etc.
On the definition of “small”: Really it’s not small vs. big. It’s poor vs. rich. We have large nonprofits with large budgets and staff and that basically have little unrestricted money to spend on outside assistance and small staffed nonprofits that seem to have endless cash to spend on consulting and training. Regardless, even organizations in major need – if you offer services that have value and impact to their cause, see the fee a small investment.
On barriers: In order to stay in biz for as long as we have, we are obsessed with what are the barriers for folks to access our services. Fees are definitely in the mix and need to be constantly attended to, but there are so many other factors of which one of the the biggest we see is time (having the time to take a workshop or work with a consultant) and timing. Time seems to be the most preciousn of all commodities in many of our “small” community based organizations. Geography for in-person services is also a major influence.
