In the past two days, two UK non-profits - Access Community Trust in East Anglia, and Well Women Wakefield, based in Yorkshire, have collapsed. Access Community Trust had been in existence for 50 years. Well Women Wakefield, for forty.
Across the UK, and globally, non-profits are struggling. Many are very close to failing. That means shut doors, withdrawn support for those basically abandoned by the UK government, and facing insurmountable barriers across every single path to even the smallest success, lost jobs, and unpaid wages.
It means questions, suspicions, accusations - not just against these organisations and their Trustees, but against their service users. The most vulnerable in society. Accusations that, maybe, they "didn't really need" the help they were getting. That maybe they were "scroungers", "skivers". People who, somehow, were taking things they weren't "entitled" to.
The slurs start, even if only in peoples' minds. Those charities wasted their money on "sl-ts", "p*keys", "r-rds", "f!gg!ts", "woke snowflakes", "losers."
Slowly, people try out saying the slurs - online at first, but then more boldly. Women's charities get "whataboutism" - because there isn't the same level of provision for ordinary, non-addicted, non-criminal men who are struggling, who are left destitute, or close to destitution by an ignorant and self-absorbed system of government. That's not a burden for those organisations choosing to serve women and girls to consider, but it is one that angry, frightened, exhausted and anxious men dump on them anyway - because, if they try to pass it to anyone else, they get told to "man up", that they "don't have problems", that they should "solve their own problems."
Charities that support men get loudly accused of "promoting misogyny" and "supporting toxic patriarchal bullsh*t."
Organisations providing for refugees and asylum seekers get demands of "what about white people?!", and face the inevitable racism centred on how those service users are "taking over."
Groups that support young people get hit by waves of resentment that "they get everything handed to them - they need a kick up the arse, not pandering and coddling!"
Services for LGBTQ+ are aggressively targeted, often with outright violence. They are accused of being a direct threat to "women and girls", they are screamed at for "destroying family values."
CEOs are doxxed. Staff and volunteers are assaulted, or attacked online, most often over their appearance. Slurs abound. Newspapers gleefully give over inches of print to letters from Outraged of Oxbridge, who demands to know where "all this money these charities get is coming from", who froths at the mouth about "what about hardworking people?!" Somehow, however irrelevantly, Outraged will bring in a defence of JK Rowling.
The eagle-eyed guardians of society's morals hover, waiting for the merest hint that there may be "some sort of mismanagement going on." They fixate on finding "proof" of "corruption" - and, in the absence of it, will merrily start a giant game of Whispers, and let rumours do what rumours do best - undermine trust without any evidence.
It is undeniable that non-profits are being undermined from outside, as people in the UK are increasingly manipulated by a variety of 'bad actors' into hostility, aggression, suspicion, and resentment - which are all manifestations of genuine fear.
But external bad attitudes can't destroy decades of steady success. Something genuinely is rotten inside of the non-profit sector as a whole; it's not individual organisations; individual organisations failing is a symptom of a cancer that's deep in the cells of the entire sector.
So, how are non-profits harming themselves?
. Lack of transparency over CEO pay
CEOs are widely viewed very unfavourably by society in general, with most of the attitude behind that coming from a systemic refusal of any organisations to be upfront about why their CEOs are paid so much more than the people who are more visibly "doing the work", or where the CEOs' pay comes from.
With non-profits, this is especially egregious because the perception from many people in the UK is that "our money" somehow pays for the advertised wages - whether "our money" is taxes, or donations made directly to individual charities.
CEOs actually have a lot in common with those perceived as female, regardless of their individual genders; the work they do is largely invisible, but it underpins and facilitates everything that everyone else does.
I've been CEO of my own company, and I've worked closely with both non-profit and for-profit CEOs across a range of sectors; CEOs don't "just coast off everyone elses' labour!" - a CEO creates the strategic 'roadmap' that underpins the job descriptions, project outlines, and action plans of everyone else in the business. The CEO is responsible for finding the "next payday" that will keep everyone's paydays coming, will keep the lights on in the business, physically and metaphorically, will enable their teams to be well-briefed and well-positioned for the jump to the next most relevant and most well-remunerated action. They respond to the "fires" of team members behaving poorly, of an uptick in social media criticism, in direct accusations - they bring together their top firefighters, and direct those peoples' focus and responsive actions - having first decided whether a response is necessary, something that requires reviewing a lot of competing, and often contradictory, information, and often searching out that information, which isn't always accessible, or obvious. The CEO is basically the human being who has to act for the non-sentient, immobile legal entity which is the company.
And that's before you get to the 10 meetings they've been "priority called" into, the endless emails they have to respond to (600 emails a day is a low average, from the CEOs I've worked with - even with my own, very small, very unknown, business, I was handling 20-30 emails a day), the near-constant phone calls... The same work almost every white-collar worker hates.
Everyone in the organisation brings every problem to the CEO eventually; I've worked with a CEO who was being cc'd in to emails complaining about the colour of uniform shirts. It wasn't even a supplier fail - one member of staff just didn't like the colour of their shirt. That same CEO was also being cc'd in on a dispute between a neighbouring business and the local council's planning officer.
The CEO hears about Greg turning up in a Haiwaiin shirt, and gets asked if "we should set a formal dresscode". They hear about Sarah in Accounts being upset at the way Jessica spoke to her. They not only get asked what HR should "do" about a team member undergoing gender affirming transition, but they also have to hear every pipsqueak in the business' feelings about trans people breathing in their vicinity.
They get asked to "authorise" "cost saving measures" that centre on restricting the amount of toilet roll people can use to wipe their backsides.
And remember; their primary job is to determine the big picture of the company's wealth-rich future. They're being asked to plan for at least five years ahead, to predict election results and government whims, to know when, if, and how to respond to drama on social media. All the other stuff they have no choice but to split their time across? Those are distractions from their actual job - just like most white collar workers consider meetings something that "gets in the way" of their real job.
Across the UK, and globally, non-profits are struggling. Many are very close to failing. That means shut doors, withdrawn support for those basically abandoned by the UK government, and facing insurmountable barriers across every single path to even the smallest success, lost jobs, and unpaid wages.
It means questions, suspicions, accusations - not just against these organisations and their Trustees, but against their service users. The most vulnerable in society. Accusations that, maybe, they "didn't really need" the help they were getting. That maybe they were "scroungers", "skivers". People who, somehow, were taking things they weren't "entitled" to.
The slurs start, even if only in peoples' minds. Those charities wasted their money on "sl-ts", "p*keys", "r-rds", "f!gg!ts", "woke snowflakes", "losers."
Slowly, people try out saying the slurs - online at first, but then more boldly. Women's charities get "whataboutism" - because there isn't the same level of provision for ordinary, non-addicted, non-criminal men who are struggling, who are left destitute, or close to destitution by an ignorant and self-absorbed system of government. That's not a burden for those organisations choosing to serve women and girls to consider, but it is one that angry, frightened, exhausted and anxious men dump on them anyway - because, if they try to pass it to anyone else, they get told to "man up", that they "don't have problems", that they should "solve their own problems."
Charities that support men get loudly accused of "promoting misogyny" and "supporting toxic patriarchal bullsh*t."
Organisations providing for refugees and asylum seekers get demands of "what about white people?!", and face the inevitable racism centred on how those service users are "taking over."
Groups that support young people get hit by waves of resentment that "they get everything handed to them - they need a kick up the arse, not pandering and coddling!"
Services for LGBTQ+ are aggressively targeted, often with outright violence. They are accused of being a direct threat to "women and girls", they are screamed at for "destroying family values."
CEOs are doxxed. Staff and volunteers are assaulted, or attacked online, most often over their appearance. Slurs abound. Newspapers gleefully give over inches of print to letters from Outraged of Oxbridge, who demands to know where "all this money these charities get is coming from", who froths at the mouth about "what about hardworking people?!" Somehow, however irrelevantly, Outraged will bring in a defence of JK Rowling.
The eagle-eyed guardians of society's morals hover, waiting for the merest hint that there may be "some sort of mismanagement going on." They fixate on finding "proof" of "corruption" - and, in the absence of it, will merrily start a giant game of Whispers, and let rumours do what rumours do best - undermine trust without any evidence.
It is undeniable that non-profits are being undermined from outside, as people in the UK are increasingly manipulated by a variety of 'bad actors' into hostility, aggression, suspicion, and resentment - which are all manifestations of genuine fear.
But external bad attitudes can't destroy decades of steady success. Something genuinely is rotten inside of the non-profit sector as a whole; it's not individual organisations; individual organisations failing is a symptom of a cancer that's deep in the cells of the entire sector.
So, how are non-profits harming themselves?
. Lack of transparency over CEO pay
CEOs are widely viewed very unfavourably by society in general, with most of the attitude behind that coming from a systemic refusal of any organisations to be upfront about why their CEOs are paid so much more than the people who are more visibly "doing the work", or where the CEOs' pay comes from.
With non-profits, this is especially egregious because the perception from many people in the UK is that "our money" somehow pays for the advertised wages - whether "our money" is taxes, or donations made directly to individual charities.
CEOs actually have a lot in common with those perceived as female, regardless of their individual genders; the work they do is largely invisible, but it underpins and facilitates everything that everyone else does.
I've been CEO of my own company, and I've worked closely with both non-profit and for-profit CEOs across a range of sectors; CEOs don't "just coast off everyone elses' labour!" - a CEO creates the strategic 'roadmap' that underpins the job descriptions, project outlines, and action plans of everyone else in the business. The CEO is responsible for finding the "next payday" that will keep everyone's paydays coming, will keep the lights on in the business, physically and metaphorically, will enable their teams to be well-briefed and well-positioned for the jump to the next most relevant and most well-remunerated action. They respond to the "fires" of team members behaving poorly, of an uptick in social media criticism, in direct accusations - they bring together their top firefighters, and direct those peoples' focus and responsive actions - having first decided whether a response is necessary, something that requires reviewing a lot of competing, and often contradictory, information, and often searching out that information, which isn't always accessible, or obvious. The CEO is basically the human being who has to act for the non-sentient, immobile legal entity which is the company.
And that's before you get to the 10 meetings they've been "priority called" into, the endless emails they have to respond to (600 emails a day is a low average, from the CEOs I've worked with - even with my own, very small, very unknown, business, I was handling 20-30 emails a day), the near-constant phone calls... The same work almost every white-collar worker hates.
Everyone in the organisation brings every problem to the CEO eventually; I've worked with a CEO who was being cc'd in to emails complaining about the colour of uniform shirts. It wasn't even a supplier fail - one member of staff just didn't like the colour of their shirt. That same CEO was also being cc'd in on a dispute between a neighbouring business and the local council's planning officer.
The CEO hears about Greg turning up in a Haiwaiin shirt, and gets asked if "we should set a formal dresscode". They hear about Sarah in Accounts being upset at the way Jessica spoke to her. They not only get asked what HR should "do" about a team member undergoing gender affirming transition, but they also have to hear every pipsqueak in the business' feelings about trans people breathing in their vicinity.
They get asked to "authorise" "cost saving measures" that centre on restricting the amount of toilet roll people can use to wipe their backsides.
And remember; their primary job is to determine the big picture of the company's wealth-rich future. They're being asked to plan for at least five years ahead, to predict election results and government whims, to know when, if, and how to respond to drama on social media. All the other stuff they have no choice but to split their time across? Those are distractions from their actual job - just like most white collar workers consider meetings something that "gets in the way" of their real job.
. Poor Quality Focus
The mainstream media like to fixate on one aspect of poor quality focus, which they believe is the big, bad wolf of the non-profit sector: "Mission creep."
Mission creep is when an organisation begins to act outside its original remit, and, having worked directly with Access Community Trust, I can see elements of mission creep in their recent work - a fcus on property and visibility, a need to control everything that could possibly come under the non-profit remit, particularly in their home base of Lowestoft.
But what's often far more prevalent than mission creep is mission bewilderment; an inability to identify either the problem which the organisation can respond to most effectively, or to see the single root cause of multiple problems, meaning resources are diverted across the individual problems, rather than their shared single cause.
It is also easy for non-profits to fall into the trap of looking busy, rather than doing necessary work - non-profits are in a unique position of being constantly demanded to "prove" that they "need" and "deserve" their donations and statutory funding. This means that a lot of buckets get half-filled, rather than a single but significant sewer getting high-pressure hosed clean.
. A victim complex, and a narrative of learned helplessness
Is it exhausting, frustrating, and challenging to be constantly chasing statutory funding? Absolutely. Are government bodies and funding foundations an absolute nightmare to deal with? Definitely. But non-profits don't help themselves by mewling that they "need" more donations, more volunteers, seemingly obliviously to the challenges to society in general of rising costs of living, and the increasing need for people to work multiple paid jobs. By presenting themselves as just being unable to take initiative beyond writing funding bids, and chasing government crumbs.
With individual households, this problem results in people who feel like a weight around the necks of those closest to them. We all know the type; all the privilege and social support in the world, but they'll just sit there, crying that they "just can't!", that they "need a mental health break!" That they're "literally traumatised!" They stamp well-shod feet and demand that "money and capitalism just goes away!, because we weren't designed to work and pay bills!" - we weren't designed to travel in ways other than walking, to live with air-conditioning, to buy designer sweaters, or to keep animals purely as pets, either, yet here we are...and no one's complaining about any of that. (Well, PETA are complaining about the latter, but very few people listen to them these days.)
With non-profits, this attitude results in an impression of muleishness. A lack of initiative. Bad attitudes from retail arm volunteers about the organisation's service users. Increased nicheing down and gatekeeping of the organisation's support - organisations who claimed their remit as "supporting LGBTQ+ communities" shift to "supporting AFAB and Non-binary young people with neurodivergent and mental health conditions." Groups supporting men become about "supporting Dads", or "supporting men struggling with addiction." Organisations who support women suddenly pivot to providing "menopause support." Not because that's the work that needs to be done, but because that's the work central government are willing to throw some loose change at, and want to see done.
But non-profits are businesses too. And, right now, the UK's business sector has been very vocal in challenging government decisions - and in getting them backtracked on, in many cases.
Non-profits refuse to see themselves as businesses. "Business" is a dirty word. So, rather than dynamically standing up for their service users, and those who may become their service users, they meekly mute themselves, and sit, patiently waiting for the government to tell them who they're allowed to help, and to what degree. What the height limit on "real women" is. How broadly built someone with XX chromosomes is "allowed" to be. Who can identify as non-binary, and how those people are allowed to explain their experience of that term. What oppression "matters", and which forms people need to shut up about and get over. Who are real people, deserving of humanity, grace, compassion, and support? How far beyond "Oh, gosh, poor you!" that support is permitted to go.
. Government attitudes
The non-profit sector should be a source of pride for national governments and local authorities; a group of multiply-skilled, passionate, grass-roots-informed people, fully plugged into and widely accepted and liked by their communities, who know within the hour where the problems and the needs are, and have some immediate plans to address the problems, to meet the needs. Hyper-connected organisers, dynamic thinkers, people who'll hop between skillsets with sleeeves rolled up, eyes on the main issue, and voices raised.
How amazing to have people you can hand over your budget for resolving problems and meeting needs to, who know where to use it first, how it can achieve the most good, the best people to talk to, the best way to communicate the narrative of what's needed to the community who can supply it, who are already familiar to the people they're helping, and the people they're asking for help, people who are intimately acquainted with the real world experience of unemployment, minimum wage work, balancing child care and care for frail elders with multiple part-time jobs, managing disability and employment, or the reality of disability being an immovable barrier to employment. People who've been homeless, or very close to it. People who've lost jobs, who've been out of work for years, rather than weeks. People who are suffering as they age. People on the sharp end of NHS incompetence and NHS waiting lists. People who know exactly how the aggressive graffitti and ragged flags suddenly springing up from every other lampposts feel, no matter what those responsible claim it's all about. People who are at the end of their tether paying business rates, rent, and insurance that skyrockets every time their shop windows get smashed by drunken idiots - again.
And those people aren't demanding million-pound salaries and tasty stock options for their expertise! In relative terms (relative to well-expensed government suits), they're willing to work for practically nothing - sometimes even literally nothing!
The pride of those people, that dynamic force, should be shouted from the rooftops, feted at regular events, and honoured with decent payment for the considerable services rendered.
Instead, the UK government is embarrased by the existence of the non-profit sector, for the most part. And when people make us feel shame, we seek to punish them - and the UK government's favourite methods of punishment are denial of funding, and weasel words about "what kind of people are actually being helped by these unknown quantities?"
This is, by necessity, a very broad and relatively benign overview of what's wrong with non-profits. A very simple and immediate change for the better would be to stop using the terms "charity", "charities", "third-sector", and "charitable sector" - and proudly use the phrase "socially invested non-profit business sector."
For UK socially invested non-profits looking to failure-proof, future-proof, and improve organisational resilience, The Productive Pessimist have capacity for immediate support. Email us: theproductivepessimist@yahoo.com
The mainstream media like to fixate on one aspect of poor quality focus, which they believe is the big, bad wolf of the non-profit sector: "Mission creep."
Mission creep is when an organisation begins to act outside its original remit, and, having worked directly with Access Community Trust, I can see elements of mission creep in their recent work - a fcus on property and visibility, a need to control everything that could possibly come under the non-profit remit, particularly in their home base of Lowestoft.
But what's often far more prevalent than mission creep is mission bewilderment; an inability to identify either the problem which the organisation can respond to most effectively, or to see the single root cause of multiple problems, meaning resources are diverted across the individual problems, rather than their shared single cause.
It is also easy for non-profits to fall into the trap of looking busy, rather than doing necessary work - non-profits are in a unique position of being constantly demanded to "prove" that they "need" and "deserve" their donations and statutory funding. This means that a lot of buckets get half-filled, rather than a single but significant sewer getting high-pressure hosed clean.
. A victim complex, and a narrative of learned helplessness
Is it exhausting, frustrating, and challenging to be constantly chasing statutory funding? Absolutely. Are government bodies and funding foundations an absolute nightmare to deal with? Definitely. But non-profits don't help themselves by mewling that they "need" more donations, more volunteers, seemingly obliviously to the challenges to society in general of rising costs of living, and the increasing need for people to work multiple paid jobs. By presenting themselves as just being unable to take initiative beyond writing funding bids, and chasing government crumbs.
With individual households, this problem results in people who feel like a weight around the necks of those closest to them. We all know the type; all the privilege and social support in the world, but they'll just sit there, crying that they "just can't!", that they "need a mental health break!" That they're "literally traumatised!" They stamp well-shod feet and demand that "money and capitalism just goes away!, because we weren't designed to work and pay bills!" - we weren't designed to travel in ways other than walking, to live with air-conditioning, to buy designer sweaters, or to keep animals purely as pets, either, yet here we are...and no one's complaining about any of that. (Well, PETA are complaining about the latter, but very few people listen to them these days.)
With non-profits, this attitude results in an impression of muleishness. A lack of initiative. Bad attitudes from retail arm volunteers about the organisation's service users. Increased nicheing down and gatekeeping of the organisation's support - organisations who claimed their remit as "supporting LGBTQ+ communities" shift to "supporting AFAB and Non-binary young people with neurodivergent and mental health conditions." Groups supporting men become about "supporting Dads", or "supporting men struggling with addiction." Organisations who support women suddenly pivot to providing "menopause support." Not because that's the work that needs to be done, but because that's the work central government are willing to throw some loose change at, and want to see done.
But non-profits are businesses too. And, right now, the UK's business sector has been very vocal in challenging government decisions - and in getting them backtracked on, in many cases.
Non-profits refuse to see themselves as businesses. "Business" is a dirty word. So, rather than dynamically standing up for their service users, and those who may become their service users, they meekly mute themselves, and sit, patiently waiting for the government to tell them who they're allowed to help, and to what degree. What the height limit on "real women" is. How broadly built someone with XX chromosomes is "allowed" to be. Who can identify as non-binary, and how those people are allowed to explain their experience of that term. What oppression "matters", and which forms people need to shut up about and get over. Who are real people, deserving of humanity, grace, compassion, and support? How far beyond "Oh, gosh, poor you!" that support is permitted to go.
. Government attitudes
The non-profit sector should be a source of pride for national governments and local authorities; a group of multiply-skilled, passionate, grass-roots-informed people, fully plugged into and widely accepted and liked by their communities, who know within the hour where the problems and the needs are, and have some immediate plans to address the problems, to meet the needs. Hyper-connected organisers, dynamic thinkers, people who'll hop between skillsets with sleeeves rolled up, eyes on the main issue, and voices raised.
How amazing to have people you can hand over your budget for resolving problems and meeting needs to, who know where to use it first, how it can achieve the most good, the best people to talk to, the best way to communicate the narrative of what's needed to the community who can supply it, who are already familiar to the people they're helping, and the people they're asking for help, people who are intimately acquainted with the real world experience of unemployment, minimum wage work, balancing child care and care for frail elders with multiple part-time jobs, managing disability and employment, or the reality of disability being an immovable barrier to employment. People who've been homeless, or very close to it. People who've lost jobs, who've been out of work for years, rather than weeks. People who are suffering as they age. People on the sharp end of NHS incompetence and NHS waiting lists. People who know exactly how the aggressive graffitti and ragged flags suddenly springing up from every other lampposts feel, no matter what those responsible claim it's all about. People who are at the end of their tether paying business rates, rent, and insurance that skyrockets every time their shop windows get smashed by drunken idiots - again.
And those people aren't demanding million-pound salaries and tasty stock options for their expertise! In relative terms (relative to well-expensed government suits), they're willing to work for practically nothing - sometimes even literally nothing!
The pride of those people, that dynamic force, should be shouted from the rooftops, feted at regular events, and honoured with decent payment for the considerable services rendered.
Instead, the UK government is embarrased by the existence of the non-profit sector, for the most part. And when people make us feel shame, we seek to punish them - and the UK government's favourite methods of punishment are denial of funding, and weasel words about "what kind of people are actually being helped by these unknown quantities?"
This is, by necessity, a very broad and relatively benign overview of what's wrong with non-profits. A very simple and immediate change for the better would be to stop using the terms "charity", "charities", "third-sector", and "charitable sector" - and proudly use the phrase "socially invested non-profit business sector."
For UK socially invested non-profits looking to failure-proof, future-proof, and improve organisational resilience, The Productive Pessimist have capacity for immediate support. Email us: theproductivepessimist@yahoo.com
Comments
Post a Comment