Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Oh boy, can I relate to this! I have spent about a decade working for nonprofits and I think they are extremely weird organizations with no good accountability or feedback loops built in unless the CEO and Board choose to implement them. The quality of the organization almost completely flows from a few highly engaged board members, one or two donors that may give the majority of funding, and the CEO. If they are spectacular, you get a spectacular org, if they suck, you get a sucky org (and maybe some crimes as well).

Because the thing is, the customers of the nonprofit are the donors which purchase the marketing story of nonprofit and nothing else. It is sort of like bitcoin, there are no fundamentals, just the hype and hope and that is the only fuel needed. The actual programmatic activities of the nonprofit do not need to bear any resemblance to the marketing story the donors purchase. If you are very good at telling that story, you do not need to answer to the donors at all on the real performance metrics of your org. A very large donor may demand to see these fundamentals, but you don’t need them if you have smaller donors. Grant making foundations also often demand fundamentals and measures of effective philanthropy, but you can avoid taking any grants that expose you to too much governance.

And finally the board tends to be the society of friends of the CEO, so they very rarely do anything but use their connections to boost the money and influence of the org.

In the end; the CEO does not need to answer to the board, the donors, the beneficiaries, the shareholders, the IRS, the Gates foundation or the employees. They answer to their own conscience.



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: