Nonprofit Accountability: A New Middle Ground?

A persuasive piece in yesterday’s New York Times argued that because so many of their long-term goals, unlike those of the for-profit sector, are difficult to quantify, nonprofits should not be held accountable to the same standards as their corporate brethren. Columnist Denise Caruso detailed the backlash among nonprofits against the notion “that the return on charitable dollars should be tangible and measurable, and should drive capital flow in much the same way that earnings figures do in commerce.” Citing several recent publications that said “the present situation was limiting the effectiveness of … charitable dollars,” Caruso wrote about calls to provide charities with more operating support (as opposed to funding on a project-by-project basis) while still retaining accountability:

These grant makers have successfully shown that providing nonprofits with operating support “does not mean forking over tens of thousands of dollars and relinquishing expectations for results,” [one] report said.

Instead, they have built due diligence and accountability measures into their agreements that go much deeper than simple project budgets and reports.

It’s completely reasonable for donors large and small to expect their gifts will produce results. If those results are hard to quantify, well, then it’s up to them and their grantees to work together to come up with acceptable benchmarks. If the middle way that Caruso writes about proves effective, it will prove a boon both for nonprofits and for those who fund them. | 501(c)