Yesterday’s Boston Globe reports that, for nonprofits, mergers are an increasingly popular response to a contracting economy. After all, consolidation is such a dominant theme in other sectors, why should we be immune? And at very least, shouldn’t proposals for new nonprofits should be discouraged? And a recent Bridgespan study found that well planned (i.e., not borne out of a crisis) mergers help agencies serve more clients and reduce per-client costs.
So how the heck do we justify bringing a Springfield Institute into the world? Glad you asked.
- The Springfiled Institute is designed as a recession-busting consolidation strategy of sorts, providing a centralized resource for research and analysis, and precluding the need for individual community organizations to maintain as much internal capacity (see “About“).
- It’s a zero-sum proposition. The Springfield Institute is really a transformation of a nonprofit that already exists (Policy Development).
- There’s no obvious “competitor” in Springfield.
- Boston Foundation president, Paul Grogan, who is quoted in the article explaining that the increase in the number of nonprofits “is cause for serious concern,” is also a Springfield Institute enthusiast.
Filed under: Nonprofit/social sector, philanthropy |