Ingrid, What parts of the DTC are the worst for the NGO sector? Would like to hear also of some alternatives, or at least to address whatever has caused the IT department to believe that a change from current rules was necessary?
> OTOH, the reductionist overhead:revenue ratio as a metric of 'deservingness' > is, I believe, as much a consequence of the sector's failure to provide > plausible alternatives, and its willingness to play the ratio game, as it is > of the need for a one-size-fits-all comparator. I agree, and in India at least, there is very little effort at transparency. When I wrote about Oxfam's heavily skewed ratio, Oxfam management did get in touch, and the one thing they mentioned was that "at least we reveal these numbers". It's horrendously difficult to get appropriate comparisions. When I complained (and continue to complain) of acquisition costs - not overhead, but just the costs of acquiring donations - of around 50%, I am told this is the industry average. If it is, it is obvious why people don't donate... On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Ingrid Srinath <[email protected]> wrote: > On 22 Mar 2013, at 17:46, Pranesh Prakash <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Ingrid Srinath >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> This TED Talk touches on some of the perverse disincentives non-profits >>> face that hamper scale, innovation, sustainability and impact. They are >>> issues I've grappled with, sometimes successfully, sometimes not, for 15 >>> years. Aspects have featured on silk previously. The proposed Indian Direct >>> Tax Code exacerbates the problem considerably: >>> http://www.cafindia.org/DTC-NGO.pdf >>> >>> I would love to know what folks here think on this subject. >>> >>> http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_about_charity_is_dead_wrong.html >> >> >> I haven't seen this yet, but you might be interested in this: >> http://www.economist.com/node/21556570 >> > Thanks, Pranesh. > > Tax exemption aside, the expectation that an organisation can be viable and > grow to scale when it's not permitted to: > > accumulate reserves > incur debt > invest in people, technology, marketing > or take risks > > especially when these organisations exist to tackle the nasty, intractable > problems that both state and market have failed at, seems to me unreasonable. > > OTOH, the reductionist overhead:revenue ratio as a metric of 'deservingness' > is, I believe, as much a consequence of the sector's failure to provide > plausible alternatives, and its willingness to play the ratio game, as it is > of the need for a one-size-fits-all comparator. > > Is there a good norm, for instance, on remuneration or incentives? > Benchmarking to private or public sector equivalents, seems to me to, at > best, set limits. Current practice limits entry to those who can afford it, > either because they have other sources of income/support or are willing to > make some stark lifestyle choices for themselves and their families. > > The perverse donor logic that success must be penalised by favouring > organisations that are smaller, less 'savvy' is another bugbear. > > Most critically, as regular citizens, how do we propose to sustain an > independent public sphere - media, civil society, regulation - free from the > control of state and market and/or dependence on the whims of big > philanthropy? Especially when it is clear that poor governance is at the root > of most, if not all, our current crises? > > The growing trend towards crowdfunding privileges the short-term, easily > measured, simply communicated, emotional appeal over the boring, unsexy, > long-term work that yields systemic or structural change. > > Recent developments - media regulation in the UK, the new constraints of > India's proposed direct tax code, the debate around mandatory CSR, and the > ongoing battle for freedoms of expression, assembly and association around > the world - make these questions more urgent than ever. > > - Ingrid > > >
