 
Huggybear
Member
Username: Huggybear
Post Number: 251
Registered: 08-2005
Posted From: 68.79.118.74
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 29, 2006 - 9:09 pm: |    |
Four thought questions related to Detroit nonprofits, particularly the ones that are taking over what used to be considered functions of city government. I am not asking these questions with regard to any specific nonprofit - this is purely at the public policy level.
1. Do nonprofits have any inherent advantages that allow them to perform in ways that elected/appointed city government cannot?
2. As organizations that largely have self-perpetuating boards, are nonprofits sufficiently accountable to constituencies?
3. Do nonprofits create a brain drain by drawing away people whose talents could be put to use in the elected/appointed city government?
4. Do nonprofits serve as enablers in an abusive relationship between city government and its constituency? In other words, do their activities prevent the citizenry from understanding how well (or poorly) city government is actually doing? |
Bvos
Member
Username: Bvos
Post Number: 1904
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 70.228.57.79
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 29, 2006 - 9:30 pm: | |
As someone who's worked in non-profit community develpment organizations (CDCs) in Detroit and now works in a quasi-governmental (a non-profit with city ties) urban planning position, here's my take:
1.a. Non-profits don't have as much buracracy to deal with. They can quickly meet with their board, have community input sessions and make the decisions needed to get things done.
1.b. Non-profits are able to tap into funding sources (grants, donations, etc) that governments are not able to or don't typically get involved with.
1.c. Non-profits have a set mission laid out in their bylaws. They can focus on one area and just do that thing well. They aren't forced to take on duties outside of their mission and aren't as affected by the wrath of a politican with an ax to grind. They're also less likely to be affected by politicians trying to placate gadflies who have no real clue. Non-profits can politely thank gadflies for their input and then move on with business.
1.d. Non-profits are independent from the government and as a result are usually able to better garner support and trust from the community.
2. For the most part, non-profit boards as a principal work hard to have a board that represents the community as well as stay accountable to the community through newsletters, community meetings, vision setting meetings, etc. There are some bad eggs out there who can give a bad name to non-profits, but the vast majority are by and for the community they serve.
3. For the most part I'd say non-profits do not create a brain drain. Most non-profits pay less than the government sector. Also most non-profits these days work hand in hand with the government to supplement and assist their efforts. That said, some very talented government workers have left for the non-profit world due to their frustration with the buracracy and backwards thinking of the equivalent government sector.
4. I'd say non-profits do the exact opposite. The vast majority are willing and ready to call the government out when they're not doing their job. Now the most responsible will only raise a fuss when someone is negligent in their duties rather than make a scene about something the government simply doesn't have the capabilities to do because of budget cut backs, etc.
I'd say that the government (at least in Detroit) can be abusive to non-profits. There are many a non-profit in Detroit who've been screwed over for justifiably calling out the government for their poor performance. The government doesn't like the fact that they've been exposed and they do every vindictive thing possible to make life miserable for that non-profit. |
|