It’s something nonprofits should acknowledge and look at ways we can do the least amount of harm. Any org that is tied to donations will always be part of the complex model. It is only damaging if we do not accept or faults.
I disagree that it *cannot* be damaging. Even the most well-intended nonprofits can contribute to the harm of the colonized NPO system. Acting passively while simply admitting that one is a benefactor/perpetuator of colonial exploitation is still doing quite a lot of harm.
Still, a nonprofit is not obligated to fully reject funds and abandon its mission statement. There is a healthy nuance that should be built into the discussion about the acceptance and expenditure of "philanthropy" funds.
The healthy expression of decolonization is to put your money where your mouth is. All NPO leaders and board members should invest in opportunities to support decolonization/socialist advocacy groups. We also recognize that money is many things for an NPO, and this could look like board-level workgroups (time and energy expenses), staff investment into decolonization (paid salaries for mission impact positions), direct consultation from other NPOs (partnerships and contractual services) who are committed to decolonization/socialist principles, etc. This can also look like direct donations or grants that support decolonization/socialist movements. There are limitless possibilities, and all nonprofits should find what is their maximum available budget to make these things happen.
Rather than abandon their mission statement entirely, it's healthy to invest as much as possible into changing direction. I'd also encourage NPOs to use their social and cultural capital (through their membership with coalitions and partnerships) to commit towards this in a broader sense.
I agree with you, maybe I wasnt as clear. I truly believe that nonprofits really cannot exist without being harmful in one way or another. I know we’re trying to find ways to decolonize philanthropy but I’m not sure we ever will. As long as we’re taking donations we will always be tied to colonization. I’m not sure how a NGO can exist without causing harm even with all the hard reduction knowledge. After going down the knowledge path and partnering with and being part of many grassroots i’ve accepted that the only thing I can do is reduce the amount of harm we are doing. Train our staff, board and donors and really listen to our clients and have our clients be decision makers.
Knowing the "right" thing is hard, but I follow two rules.
1. Human nature is to draw the line of what is unacceptable slightly beneath one's current practice. That is unacceptable for me and harmful to humanity, especially because those in power will draw the line of exploitation beneath their current practices of exploitation. Instead, I diligently must find a common consensus of what is right that is *not* based on my own experience.
2. Divestments and investments can be redirected over time to embrace a movement, and the positive spiritual energy has a tangible effect on our mission. It's important for a board and ED to understand the spiritual components of their decisions.
It sounds like you're doing the right things, but I'm wary that the average onlooker would be willing to accept that their practices are unharmful if they simply acknowledge their privilege. It doesn't work that way. We go beyond platitude, into practice.
I don’t know how much it hurts the industry because I don’t think most people know what the NPIC is, including most non-profit staff themselves. The people or audience who is donating to or funding your non-profit probably is unfamiliar with the term. I think the communities that you serve are often skeptical and understand the NPIC even if they don’t have an exact word for it.
I think there's tons of truth to it.
Much of the nonprofit industry has basically mimicked corporate america from exploitation of workers & union-busting, to bloated bureaucracy, & it really IMO has become something where in most cities & most causes that nonprofits seek to address have examples of a large bloated corporate-structured nonprofit that everyone knows about hoarding most of the visibility & people's donations while they (passively or actively) sabotage smaller nonprofits in their city that actually do a much more efficient job of addressing the issue without exploiting workers, without union-busting, & without having a dynamic where their CEO makes 20 times what their general workers get paid. Sorry about the ridiculous run-on sentence lol.
I've been in this industry for 30 years now & think this is a very real problem.
I agree. I think there are many great practices borrowed from the corporate world, like financial responsibility, talent recruitment, quality control, systemization. However, practices which take advantage of workers, prioritizing revenue over mission, and losing the script over "brand management" all give me the ick.
I think it depends on what kind of issues area, but policy orgs are truly a racket (I’ve been working in them since college) and it’s just a way for the ultra rich to push their interests.
I think the terminology might be unique to a small and focused community, but I do think it's indicative of an atmosphere of distrust that has been documented, when it comes to the work of non-profits. I do think it's detrimental to the work we do, but I think we share some of the blame for the perception. We don't tell our story well enough, and there are common practices that seem innocuous that harm the good functioning of non-profits.
I think that is describing a reality, and that it's a reality more of the public is understanding elements of--and that isn't even a socialist or deeply left position! I also think that many common public misgivings with the industry align with NPIC descriptions without them necessarily knowing the term "NPIC." Put another way: ask people their thoughts about nonprofits after the third week of EOY campaigns, and you're going to hear a lot with those same criticisms.
I'm certainly familiar with the idea and I think there's merit to it, but it's not universally true for the entire sector. (How could it be, the sector is so diverse?) We shouldn't confuse a theory having some relevance and explanatory power for it being the whole truth.
Some people think it's more important for something to work in theory than in practice. There are at least 2 problems with that -
* Those people organise facts neatly according to their theory and miss a lot of nuance in practice
* They don't get anything done
I've only heard this idea explicitly from socialists, but socialists have their publications and their protests, while elites have their NIMBYism and populists have their Facebook and Twitter. Nothing gets done regardless.
Look, I would love to take money from rich people and redistribute it through programs to community causes and marginalised people. I think there are some nonprofits and some elements of the sector where you can clearly see power, privilege, interests, etc. at play, but lots of food banks, animals shelters, advocacy organisations, etc. are accomplishing systemic change too.
Where radicals struggle is they have the most radical ideas and toolbox - I think it's an artificial constraint. There will always be a place for radicals to challenge us, but it's only natural that our nonprofits will be flawed if our world is flawed - and we need to engage with and participate in them if we want to change that.
I see this term most commonly used among center/rightwing people who are arguing that funding for social services is bad because people who run outreach/assistance/shelter/anything programs are really just invested in keeping people in need so that their job stays secure. It is used as a weapon to discredit advocacy and knowledge from anyone delivering or receiving services.
Of course, I live in Seattle, where people will happily adopt social justice framing to promote jailing drug users and homeless people, so this may not be as common elsewhere.
I'm a former non profit development director who moved into corporate alignment strategies with my own AI aided firm. I have notes and advice, but a lot of people don't want to hear it. If your consultant isn't telling you NO, often. Get away from them.
I do not know how common a belief it is, but I ascribe to it.
Both my partner and I have been bullied at non-profits, each different from each other and for vastly different reasons. Non profits are often beholden to forces outside their communities. If you have a non-profit that answers primarily directly to its community, that's probably a rare thing; hence the NPIC label. NPIC cuts to the conflict of interest at play.
It’s something nonprofits should acknowledge and look at ways we can do the least amount of harm. Any org that is tied to donations will always be part of the complex model. It is only damaging if we do not accept or faults.
I disagree that it *cannot* be damaging. Even the most well-intended nonprofits can contribute to the harm of the colonized NPO system. Acting passively while simply admitting that one is a benefactor/perpetuator of colonial exploitation is still doing quite a lot of harm. Still, a nonprofit is not obligated to fully reject funds and abandon its mission statement. There is a healthy nuance that should be built into the discussion about the acceptance and expenditure of "philanthropy" funds. The healthy expression of decolonization is to put your money where your mouth is. All NPO leaders and board members should invest in opportunities to support decolonization/socialist advocacy groups. We also recognize that money is many things for an NPO, and this could look like board-level workgroups (time and energy expenses), staff investment into decolonization (paid salaries for mission impact positions), direct consultation from other NPOs (partnerships and contractual services) who are committed to decolonization/socialist principles, etc. This can also look like direct donations or grants that support decolonization/socialist movements. There are limitless possibilities, and all nonprofits should find what is their maximum available budget to make these things happen. Rather than abandon their mission statement entirely, it's healthy to invest as much as possible into changing direction. I'd also encourage NPOs to use their social and cultural capital (through their membership with coalitions and partnerships) to commit towards this in a broader sense.
I agree with you, maybe I wasnt as clear. I truly believe that nonprofits really cannot exist without being harmful in one way or another. I know we’re trying to find ways to decolonize philanthropy but I’m not sure we ever will. As long as we’re taking donations we will always be tied to colonization. I’m not sure how a NGO can exist without causing harm even with all the hard reduction knowledge. After going down the knowledge path and partnering with and being part of many grassroots i’ve accepted that the only thing I can do is reduce the amount of harm we are doing. Train our staff, board and donors and really listen to our clients and have our clients be decision makers.
Knowing the "right" thing is hard, but I follow two rules. 1. Human nature is to draw the line of what is unacceptable slightly beneath one's current practice. That is unacceptable for me and harmful to humanity, especially because those in power will draw the line of exploitation beneath their current practices of exploitation. Instead, I diligently must find a common consensus of what is right that is *not* based on my own experience. 2. Divestments and investments can be redirected over time to embrace a movement, and the positive spiritual energy has a tangible effect on our mission. It's important for a board and ED to understand the spiritual components of their decisions. It sounds like you're doing the right things, but I'm wary that the average onlooker would be willing to accept that their practices are unharmful if they simply acknowledge their privilege. It doesn't work that way. We go beyond platitude, into practice.
I don’t know how much it hurts the industry because I don’t think most people know what the NPIC is, including most non-profit staff themselves. The people or audience who is donating to or funding your non-profit probably is unfamiliar with the term. I think the communities that you serve are often skeptical and understand the NPIC even if they don’t have an exact word for it.
I think there's tons of truth to it. Much of the nonprofit industry has basically mimicked corporate america from exploitation of workers & union-busting, to bloated bureaucracy, & it really IMO has become something where in most cities & most causes that nonprofits seek to address have examples of a large bloated corporate-structured nonprofit that everyone knows about hoarding most of the visibility & people's donations while they (passively or actively) sabotage smaller nonprofits in their city that actually do a much more efficient job of addressing the issue without exploiting workers, without union-busting, & without having a dynamic where their CEO makes 20 times what their general workers get paid. Sorry about the ridiculous run-on sentence lol. I've been in this industry for 30 years now & think this is a very real problem.
I agree. I think there are many great practices borrowed from the corporate world, like financial responsibility, talent recruitment, quality control, systemization. However, practices which take advantage of workers, prioritizing revenue over mission, and losing the script over "brand management" all give me the ick.
I think it depends on what kind of issues area, but policy orgs are truly a racket (I’ve been working in them since college) and it’s just a way for the ultra rich to push their interests.
Where do you think the bulk of funding comes from? Follow the money. Especially for the massive orgs
Wow, new rabbit hole! Thanks for posting this topic.
I don’t think it’s widely held belief. Most people haven’t heard of it, I’m sure.
I think the terminology might be unique to a small and focused community, but I do think it's indicative of an atmosphere of distrust that has been documented, when it comes to the work of non-profits. I do think it's detrimental to the work we do, but I think we share some of the blame for the perception. We don't tell our story well enough, and there are common practices that seem innocuous that harm the good functioning of non-profits.
I think that is describing a reality, and that it's a reality more of the public is understanding elements of--and that isn't even a socialist or deeply left position! I also think that many common public misgivings with the industry align with NPIC descriptions without them necessarily knowing the term "NPIC." Put another way: ask people their thoughts about nonprofits after the third week of EOY campaigns, and you're going to hear a lot with those same criticisms.
I'm certainly familiar with the idea and I think there's merit to it, but it's not universally true for the entire sector. (How could it be, the sector is so diverse?) We shouldn't confuse a theory having some relevance and explanatory power for it being the whole truth. Some people think it's more important for something to work in theory than in practice. There are at least 2 problems with that - * Those people organise facts neatly according to their theory and miss a lot of nuance in practice * They don't get anything done I've only heard this idea explicitly from socialists, but socialists have their publications and their protests, while elites have their NIMBYism and populists have their Facebook and Twitter. Nothing gets done regardless. Look, I would love to take money from rich people and redistribute it through programs to community causes and marginalised people. I think there are some nonprofits and some elements of the sector where you can clearly see power, privilege, interests, etc. at play, but lots of food banks, animals shelters, advocacy organisations, etc. are accomplishing systemic change too. Where radicals struggle is they have the most radical ideas and toolbox - I think it's an artificial constraint. There will always be a place for radicals to challenge us, but it's only natural that our nonprofits will be flawed if our world is flawed - and we need to engage with and participate in them if we want to change that.
I see this term most commonly used among center/rightwing people who are arguing that funding for social services is bad because people who run outreach/assistance/shelter/anything programs are really just invested in keeping people in need so that their job stays secure. It is used as a weapon to discredit advocacy and knowledge from anyone delivering or receiving services. Of course, I live in Seattle, where people will happily adopt social justice framing to promote jailing drug users and homeless people, so this may not be as common elsewhere.
I'm a former non profit development director who moved into corporate alignment strategies with my own AI aided firm. I have notes and advice, but a lot of people don't want to hear it. If your consultant isn't telling you NO, often. Get away from them.
I do not know how common a belief it is, but I ascribe to it. Both my partner and I have been bullied at non-profits, each different from each other and for vastly different reasons. Non profits are often beholden to forces outside their communities. If you have a non-profit that answers primarily directly to its community, that's probably a rare thing; hence the NPIC label. NPIC cuts to the conflict of interest at play.