I have been both directly and indirectly involved in Ontario’s Not for Profit Sector for many years, and I have observed that one of the most enduring themes has not changed – “we need more funding from the Province”. These requests are understandably driven by the need to raise staff salaries to remain competitive and to address continuously increasing demand for services and supports.
As a board member of a not for profit organization, I watch with keen interest the management dynamics of other not for profit organizations who are struggling to manage financial challenges. The sector in which I am involved has strong grassroots community foundations which define the organizations’ histories and attitudes. This is a major asset, but can often be a liability that organizations deliberately ignore.
Given the environment these organizations exist in, they are challenged to seek innovation and efficiency which can only go so far. The ultimate step is the idea of amalgamation. Once this idea begins to percolate, it most often clashes with organizational grassroots history and attitudes. In the sector that I am involved with, all the agencies support vulnerable adults. What differentiates them is, for example, the type of specialized supports provided or the organizational culture and history. All too often organizations simply feel that they do their jobs better than others.
What often happens is that any thought of amalgamation as a response to challenging financial issues and sustainability immediately evokes a “not us” response. This usually comes from the belief that the org is “different/better” and doesn’t want to risk losing the identity. This is a valid concern, but one that can be very effectively addressed if managed properly.
Underlying many of these “not me” responses is a fear that there will be job loss at the senior level. The Boards of Directors do not want to lose their Executive Directors and the Executive Directors don’t want to potentially lose their jobs.
In some sectors, for example, Child Welfare, amalgamations were forced and while the journey was painful, the outcome was in the best interests of children. This should be the overriding consideration for any organization facing very tough times and looking for solutions to their financial and other challenges. If amalgamation is the only way to ensure the security of support and services, organizations must set aside their “not us” response while they critically examine what is in the best interests of the individuals they support.
They often need help to examine this option, but most organizations and their boards never get passed the “not me” stage due to the factors I have described above.
As a consultant who has worked with many organizations that have successfully amalgamated, I urge those stuck in the “not me” stage to objectively and openly assess what is in the best interest of the people you support. Assessing whether to join forces with a neighbour might be difficult, but also likely the most sustainable way to proceed.
