A corporate focus

At a recent conference held by the New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services, Lin Hatfield Dodds, (Press Releases NZCCSS, Monday April 14th), was reported as saying it is time for the community sector to stop referring to itself as being 'not for profit'. I absolutely agree with this statement. It is time the sector grew up and realised that to effectively deliver services beyond the basics demanded by Government funding bodies it is necessary to earn more than we spend. Every organisation in the community sector that generates funds is first and foremost a business. If it generates revenue and spends that revenue then it is a business and it should be operated in a business-like manner.

Dodd's suggests the call to mimic the corporate world is a challenge to the core identity of community sector organisations. On this point I disagree. If we fail to operate in a structured manner our community organisations will remain ineffective, be unable to deliver any more than a basic service, continue to operate under restrictive funding models, be unable to attract quality key staff in an era of looming staff shortages, be unable to provide existing staff with an enjoyable work environment and the list goes on. The best outcomes can only be achieved if firstly the organisation is operated along established business practices.

It is not a given that a corporate approach ignores or somehow jeopardises our ability to meet the needs of people. Such thinking is a state of mind. The key factor that enables a community organisation to help those in need is money - good, old fashioned, dirty old lucre - without it your community organisation can achieve very little. It is true that a corporate-like approach to service delivery enhances our ability to maximise the benefits to the widest possible group of people. People deliver services not corporations, however these people need behind them systems and processes that enable them to deliver their service in an effortless manner. This support costs money.

I am not denigrating the thousands of small volunteer run community organisations when I say that there is a limit to what can be achieved by each individual community organisation that chooses to be run entirely by volunteers. I fully comprehend the value many of these organisations add to our community. I believe also they could contribute a lot more if they moved away from protecting their own little kingdom and looked at the options for improved service delivery.

Dodd's and others suggest the community sector should be a 'people sector'. One that puts people ahead of profits. Agreed, we are in the people sector. More to the point it is not about making a profit; it is about generating sufficient revenue. Government funding options will never be sufficient to meet a need. Additional funding has to be obtained from a variety of sectors, each which demands a degree of accountability. I would suggest the reason a service is curtailed or not made available is because the provider has insufficient 'revenue' to do so.

The mentality in many community organisations is to tailor their service delivery to match the level of current funding. Instinctively this suggests costs will be cut to match operational funding and to avoid any use of reserves. This approach is self defeating. It limits the ability of the organisation to be truly effective. It creates fear at all levels within the organisation, it discourages creativity and initiative and it stifles innovation. Worse still it ensures we only attract people to our organisations that are completely risk averse.

I would suggest that instead of focussing on cutting expenses to the level of revenue, your organisation would be well served by identifying the level of service it believes is needed and can effectively be delivered, the appropriate systems and process and the resources and people needed to deliver that service. Having done that, go out and source the amount of funding from a variety of sources, that enables your service to be delivered, that enables the maximum number of people to benefit. Don't tailoring the service to the revenue, instead maximise revenue to maximise service delivery.