> You raise a valid question: how many sources of funding does the Wikimedia
> Foundation need?
> The Bridgespan Group is a consultancy firm specialized in non-profits. They
> have been hired
> in the past by the Wikimedia Foundtion, for example in the period of
> strategy formation that
> led to the 2012-2015 Wikimedia strategy.

I do recall the Bridgespan Group analysis being shared on this list before
when we've discussed fundraising and funding models (as evidence for  why
heavy reliance on the annual fundraiser was a good thing)

I am really really unsure about the conclusions of that report, for several
reasons.  Some of those reasons are quite dull and methodological (e.g. it
is an ex post sample of post-1970 foundations that are now very successful,
rather than an ex ante sample of charities employing different means and
then examining what growth they end up with; or the arbitrary exclusion of
universities and hospitals; or the fact the analysis only encompasses the
USA; or the fact that the many "unknown"s and "none"s in the sample seem to
get ignored in the analysis entirely.).

However my most important concern is that 73% of the "high growth"
charities in the sample have a dominant income source of "government" or
"service fees" (typically, from the government). That is to say, 73% of
these high-growth charities achieved their high growth by delivering
services the government wanted them to.

If you are a charity that finds its mission is completely aligned with
delivering government programmes - great! Go for it. Get better and better
at it and your organisation will grow, possibly really quickly.

If you are not in that position, then I really fail to see how this
research applies to you. The Wikimedia movement definitely doesn't benefit
from it.

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Reply via email to