Non-profit Doesn't Have to Mean Non-growth

19 minute video could change the way you give

Dan Pallotta talked in the TED series in March about the great disservice we do to non-profits to force them to be...well, charity cases!.  He argues, vehemently, that we need to let non-profits fight a fair fight with the rest of the world of capitalistic enterprise.  

Best case he makes in two seconds was that Stanford MBAs 10 years out (as of like 2000 or whenever) average annual compensation package (that is when you know you're making bank--when you salary turns into an 'annual compensation package!) was $400k in the private sector.  Same smart kids, apples to apples in the Hunger Charity sector were making $85k.  He argues that you'd be better off to go to the private sector, write a check for $100k every year (probably vastly reducing your tax liability reducing the real cost dramatically) and being labeled a 'philanthropist' with the benefit of being an obvious success in the private sector as well; and ending up on the board, pushing around the guy from that graduating class that is now CEO of your chosen Hunger Charity!

Give a researcher $500,000 annually with 1% overhead or market the cause, bring in some hard-core management and give the research team $10mm at 29%overhead?  You can do it with a video game or a sneaker, but not a charity??

"We don't want our generation's epitaph to read 'WE KEPT CHARITABLE GIVING OVERHEAD LOW'  we want to solve problems--the big problems." --Dan Pellotta

That sums up the issue well; stop telling charity that they have to give 96% of the money they raise directly to the intended beneficiaries.  Market, bring in better talent, and bring in more money.  You will take the money now going to breakfast cereal, athletic shoes, movies, etc...and maybe things will get a little better.

Well put Dan--you definitely got me thinking about it.