With the founding of Hull House in 1889 as one of the first organized non profit entities (in terms of how we see non profit organizations in modern times, not that charity doesn't have very ancient roots in both Jewish, Christian, and other religious and secular soils [ie Roman and Greek] nor that associations did not exist since the early foundations of America or before), non profits have filled several well argued voids that government and private sector do not fill.
Hull House rose out of a tradition of assistance that had been taken care of by the wives of those with economic means. Let's say I am an Irish immigrant, and I arrive in Chicago? Now, I settle into the ghettoized area of Chicago and try to earn a living, but am freshly here in America and need a little assistance. I hear that just up the road in the wealthier part of town that there are also Irish immigrants, those that have made there way in the world. The wives of some of these fellow countrymen are willing to spare some food, perhaps some work...so, I go a visiting. My needs are met. However, over time, the situation gets out of hand, and the assistance provided mainly by the kind women of these families comes under criticism from their male relatives in the house.
Along comes Jane Adams, she is able to create a centralized home where I can go, get food, shelter, and maybe find out about work. Wealthier families are all to willing to patronize because it removes the "problem" from their own doorstep and centralizes distribution. Hull House provides a community need for the immigrant, and allows those with economic means to fill perhaps an embedded need for philanthropy (through culture, tradition, etc).
The Hull House example is ....ummm.....simplified to say the least. However, it points to some of the question in regard to Non Profits filling voids.
On the one hand, the Non Profit sector takes as a business model filling both needs unmet by government and the private sector, while on the other also crafting their own "ground to plow". Government policy is created through two perspectives - right...the power of the elite in tension with the voice of the plurality. The best government can do most of the time is to meet the needs of the median voter. Business may take up some of that slack, but where ventures are not profitable for it, there is not investment to go. Further, some items have a value that cannot be attached easily to a profit motive, such as arts performances for example. So, Non Profits "clean up" where government needs go unmet and where the contract motive fails.
But, does the Non Profit sector do more than fill "voids" do they have their own fertile playing field? I would think that they do. Precisely in those areas where the motive is "altruistic" on the surface and not bound in "squeezing more out of contractual arrangements that one puts in through labor and supplies". This is not to say that Non Profits are not, nor should be efficient, or try to extract as much use out of a quantity as possible. It is to say that the motives are different. In so much as the non profit is not designed to be situated to return moneys to an investor, but is to provide a service (or more generally fulfill a mission) to society, there lies its market.
But, this is theory, this is ideally what Non Profits do. In reality.....they may not look that way all the time. Some non profits are "for profits" in disguise. Other times, in an effort to bullwark against possible hard economic times ahead, or simply make ends meet, some methods may appear less mission oriented and more profit or surplus accumulation oriented. In fact, to some degree, Non profits do need to insulate themselves with certain profit, with certain surplus. At the end of the day though the idea should always be "eyes on the mission" In reality, people and the society that we create is not so cut and dry
Hope this helps understand my perspective
No comments:
Post a Comment