You always hear stories of them getting shut down. Folks going to jail. Etc. Is it that hard to provide services to the public?
They have to raise money to provide services to the public. If they don't raise enough money to pay for their expenses, they get shut down. It's a pretty simple idea.
For-profits just have a lot more options for generating initial funding and they have a market advantage in collecting more revenue. Banks are more willing to loan to for-profits because they are better able to show their ability to pay the back the debt. Investors are attracted to for-profits because they can generate a return on investment. It is a lot easier to get someone to pay for a good/service that they personally need/want than to get them to pay for a cause.
Actually I rarely hear those stories compared to a for profit, though it does occasionally happen. Non-Profits fail for many of the same reasons other businesses do but do not have the profit generation to fall back on. There is also the very powerful link to human generosity and disposable income which fluctuate dramatically.
Poor management. Weak business model. Lack of operating capital. Failed customer base. ….there are many others.
If you want them to be, then YES they are. It would seem you do not like the concept of a Not for profit or charity organization....please explain your reasoning.
Well, when they can't raise the money, they go under, which means the public must not be behind them. It's not a mystery. Some causes get traction, others don't. I really don't understand what the purpose of this thread is for. It's pretty much just common sense. What's your problem with non-profits?
And that's why it's so hard. There are a lot of "others" asking for money. To be clear, what is an example of "others" that you're talking about.
Big salaries for those at the top... and corruption. Like most of the Left.. they do something opposite of what they profess.
It depends on why they are dissolved. Lots of businesses are non-profits, virtually every church, schools, many hospitals and insurance companies, NGOs, etc. etc. etc. Some close down because they're no longer necessary. Others are dissolved because the parent organization no longer needs a tax shelter, and some because they were set up to sponge off the tax-payer. When government shuts down, those guys stop getting paid (another reason I love government shutdowns). All-in-all, they tend to attract less than savory characters like TV evangelists and those stupid "save hungry children!" charities that have been claiming to be able to stop world hunger for over half a century.
Well, because they are non-profit of course. That destroys the incentives to improve and to survive. Very simple.
Interesting question. I spent 15 yrs in the np world (on the funding side). The main reason social service nps fail is because theyre ineffective. The biggest advantage of private vs govt is that $$ continues to flow to ineffective govt agencies, while private sector nps cull non-producing entities by withdrawing funds. On the other hand, the more govt lays out for social services, the less private funders give to that need. Thats when big $$ goes to the arts, etc. I worked for a family foundation that was required by law to give away $1.25 M every month. Dirty rotten job but somebody's gotta do it.
I don't think most nonprofits struggle to do good jibs. They only struggle to comply with costly Federal Regulations. Nonprofits do a far better jib helping people than the federal government does. iMO
Once you could count them on hands and feet. Now there are many thousands of them. Stick to the tried and true: St. Jude Childrens Research Hospital, Salvation Army, Goodwill, Red Cross, or those you know are solid. Or just give direct to someone you know is legitimately in need. Many are only started for an easy money salary.
