I recently found myself embroiled in an
online discussion that appeared to view the not-for-profit sector as
necessarily being one that conceptually needed to be split two-ways. The
initiator of this discussion appeared to be suggesting that on the one hand
there were those NFPs who were larger and operated within a more corporate
environment, whilst the other group of NFPs are those that are somehow more
community based, potentially smaller, and are more ‘grass-roots’ orientated.
The discussion centred on the perceived
need for the ACNC, in the context of the current Federal Government’s recently
introduced legislation which would seek to effectively close down the ACNC
without necessarily identifying what, if anything, would replace it. The
discussion centred on the pros and cons of the current ACNC in the context of
what was needed, from a governance perspective, for the efficient running of this
sector. A further dimension to this discussion was the role that consultants
are playing in shaping the ongoing debate regarding the need for an additional
regulator of the type and style of the ACNC.
There are different aspects to this
discussion which are worthwhile further considering, especially in the context
of a sector which everyone agrees, plays an important part in the economic and
social life of the Australian community.
The importance of ‘community’ cannot be
overstated. At this level it is worthwhile remembering that the role of this
sector is important because of its very heavy focus on individuals. An American
author writing about what is often referred to as the third sector (van Til –
2008), suggested that “society is best
organized if voluntary organizations are numerous, effective, and thick in
meaning”. He further suggested that
in a Western style democracy, there were only four institutional means of
solving society’s challenges, namely governments, business, the third sector and
finally, what he referred to as the “informal
sector”, constituted by family and neighbourhood. This structure very much
focuses attention on the distance between services design and delivery at a
policy level and at a front-line service delivery level.
The grass-roots service delivery
approach that smaller third sector organisations espouse and are very good at
delivering, must also be considered in the light of the economic realities that
now face this sector, and will continue to challenge their very existence.
A well known
Australian academic who researched extensively the Australian nonprofit sector,
the late Mark Lyons suggested that third sector organisations needed to
carefully balance the need to maximise their financial bottom line without becoming
purely bottom-line focused, indicating that profit was necessary to ensure
sustainability and the ongoing provision of effective front-line services into
the future. His call was for an appropriate focus on improving business
performance within these organisations. His 2001 publication entitled “Third
Sector” highlighted this business performance issue and the management
practitioner conundrum when he stated “Over the past 20 to 30 years huge
resources have been committed to developing understandings and techniques to
improve business performance. But not all of the management techniques
developed by and for business are directly applicable to third sector
organisations. Third sector organisations have special characteristics that
require their own solutions but little effort is put into developing best
practice management for the third sector.”
OPTIMUM NFP has
been supporting not-for-profit organisations through the provision of strong nonprofit-specific
governance related consulting assignments in areas of Risk Management,
Strategic Financial Management, Strategic Planning, and Change Management.
Contact David Rosenbaum for a free no-obligation meeting to discuss your
not-for-profit’s requirements and how OPTIMUM NFP could assist.