Skip to content
Donate Now
  • Donate Now
  • logo
  • logo
  • News
  • Fundraising
    • Fundraising
    • Crowdfunding
    • Development
    • Donor Retention
  • Philanthropy
    • Philanthropy
    • Foundations
    • Grantmaking
    • Online Giving
  • Management
    • Management
    • Board Governance
    • Finance
    • Leadership
    • Technology
  • Policy
    • Policy
    • Activism
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Government
    • Healthcare
    • Taxes
  • Webinars
  • Magazine
  • Opinion
    • Editor’s Notes
    • The Cohen Report
    • Dr. Conflict
    • The Nonprofit Ethicist
    • Unraveling Development
    • Voices from the Field
  • Store
  • Donate Now

  • Subscribe
  • Member Log in
  • Manage Subscription
Link to subscription form
  • News
  • Fundraising
    • Fundraising
    • Crowdfunding
    • Development
    • Donor Retention
  • Philanthropy
    • Philanthropy
    • Foundations
    • Grantmaking
    • Online Giving
  • Management
    • Management
    • Board Governance
    • Finance
    • Leadership
    • Technology
  • Policy
    • Policy
    • Activism
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Government
    • Healthcare
    • Taxes
  • Webinars
  • Magazine
  • Opinion
    • Editor’s Notes
    • The Cohen Report
    • Dr. Conflict
    • The Nonprofit Ethicist
    • Unraveling Development
    • Voices from the Field
  • Store
  • My Menu

Shouldn’t We Know Why New Nonprofits Succeed or Fail?

By Rob Meiksins Rob Meiksins | December 19, 2017
Share35
Share19
Tweet72
Email
Shares 126

December 15, 2017; Conversation

What is the impulse behind the desire to create a new nonprofit? Is it the same as the urge to create a new for-profit business? Why do some new nonprofits succeed and others muddle along or even fail? Anyone who wishes to partner with a new nonprofit, whether as a donor, a programmatic collaborator, or a government grant program, would want to know what signs to look for. But, according to Assistant Professor Fredrik Andersson, there is scant credible research on the subject.

Andersson, who has written several articles for NPQ and is on its editorial committee, says some very common and very easy mistakes are made when it comes to research about the life cycles and success of nonprofits, and that because of this, we really do not have a good understanding of what makes a successful startup. There are a few basic problems with the research:

  • Researchers have an “obsession with success.” To identify what makes a successful nonprofit, the researchers look only at successful nonprofits. By looking at only one subset, the researchers are assuming that every nonprofit that behaves this way would be successful. Instead, he argues, researchers must look at all subsets, including nonprofits that have failed, to get a less biased picture. Andersson quips, “Imagine that researchers want to investigate and isolate the factors that make gamblers successful. If they study only the gamblers who win all the time, they would reach the obviously false conclusion that gambling is always profitable.”
  • The second issue is that researchers do “snapshot studies,” meaning they look at a nonprofit at only one point in time. This ignores the fact that the creation and development of a new nonprofit is a process that takes place over time. A prime example of this that has recently been covered by NPQ is the story of Growing Power. A few years ago, the founder was awarded a “genius grant” and now the whole nonprofit is in foreclosure.
  • A third issue is “memory distortion.” Since researchers only ask successful nonprofits about their startup phase, it means that the founders have to recall what they did and thought years before, when they were just starting. As we all know, memory is a funny thing; we remember what we wish to remember and it’s not always what really happened.

So, the answer, according to Andersson, is for researchers to engage with a variety of nonprofit startups from the very beginning and to stay with them over time, watching and evaluating what they do and how it works. Studying nonprofit entrepreneurship in this way, he argues, avoids the stilted binary analysis of win-lose/succeed-fail and replaces it with an understanding of evolution and process.

Of course, it’s much easier to find interview subjects willing to talk about successes than their failures. Still, Andersson is clearly right. Perhaps we can encourage investors and prospective partners as listed at the beginning of this newswire to adopt this approach. Using this approach, an investor would stay with the nonprofit over time, helping when it is just an idea and continuing to invest. If something went awry, it would mean identifying and investing in the course correction. It also means investing in the nonprofit entrepreneurial spirit.—Rob Meiksins

Share35
Share19
Tweet72
Email
Shares 126

About Rob Meiksins

Rob Meiksins

Rob has served in the nonprofit sector for over 30 years in roles ranging from intern to program manager, executive director to board director, and consultant. Starting out in professional theatre in New York City, Rob moved to Milwaukee to work with Milwaukee Rep as the dramaturg. Later, he served as executive director of Future Milwaukee, the area's oldest and most active community leadership development program. As a consultant, Rob uses a holistic approach, helping people and organizations articulate, and then take the next step towards their vision. He has worked with organizations as large as the United Way of Greater Milwaukee and as small as Ensemble Musical Offering. He focuses on strategic planning, board development, and fund development.

  • More by Rob

Read Next

  • A Small Nonprofit’s Bumpy Road to Success and Organizational Failure

    An historic and beloved nonprofit finds itself facing its demise, a victim of its own success.

Popular Posts

  1. A Graphic Re-visioning of Nonprofit Overhead
  2. You First: Leadership for a New World—“Three Tests of Leadership”
  3. The University Elephant in the Room: Where’s Community Engagement Headed?
  4. Problem Boards or Board Problem?
  5. Wounded Warrior and Komen Show Similar Deep Donation Drops after Their Respective Scandals
  6. Glassdoor Ratings and the Nonprofit Workplace

Write for NPQ

  • Our Mission
  • Advertise
  • Board of Directors
  • Foundations and Funders
  • Editorial Advisory Board
  • NPQ Staff
  • Contact Us
  • Press Release
  • Donors
  • Newsletters
  • Copyright Policy
  • Privacy Policy

  • Copyright Policy
  • Privacy Policy

Back to top ↑

To Access the Full Article, Please Login or Subscribe

Can't Login?

Register a New Account Forgot Password

Continue Reading
126 Shares
Share35
Share19
Tweet72
Email