Caught in the Middle: What Small, Non-profit Organizations Need to Survive and Flourish

Previous Page

Next Page

Table of Contents

4. Findings: The Successes and Struggles of Organizations and Agencies

To differentiate between organizations and agencies, separate discussions were held with groups identifying themselves as organizations from those that self-identified as agencies. The distinction between organizations and agencies is that agencies have the ongoing burden of infrastructure costs of operating a service.

Of the 14 agencies that provided background information on their income last year, the average amount of money for the agencies to provide services was $54,857.14 (ranging from $26,000 to $100,000) in 2000. This income paid for a total of 17 full-time staff (average of 1.21 full-time staff) and eight part-time staff (an average of .57 part-time staff).

The 15 organizations reporting income and staff had a total income of $398,650 with, on average, only three part-time staff and some contract staff. Income ranged from $400 to $115,000 last year. With so few paid staff, almost all the resources were ploughed into activities such as children's sports, food and clothing for the needy, or environmental conservation.

Organizations focusing on the environment, health, economic development, children and youth sports, heritage, residents' issues, poverty, and literacy gave this brief snapshot of why they exist and why the volunteers continue to donate their time. They provide needed "alternative services for people in the community, e.g., recreation for kids"¹⁰ that no one else offers. "Knowing you are doing it for your neighbours" instils a sense of civic pride: small organizations enable community participation and bring the community together. Because of their expertise on local issues, small organizations work to raise awareness on these issues in order to affect public policy. They are particularly successful at helping each other. Partnerships, cooperation and shared services were noted by a number of organizations. A strong volunteer base enabled organizations to do their work. Many successes were due to the fact that the organizations were small, "more grassroots oriented - more in touch with what is happening on the ground." The small size means that organizations can address specific local issues and needs, in contrast to a broader, more generic approach by larger organizations and institutions with broader mandates.

Volunteers: The struggles for survival of small organizations were uppermost in the minds of most focus group participants. They identified recruitment and retention of volunteers as major problems. It is hard to get volunteers; recruiting and training volunteers is time?consuming and expensive; turnover is a problem - organizations train the volunteers and then they leave; volunteers are stressed and burned-out with too many needs. It was noted that it costs money to be a volunteer. The out-of-pocket expenses of things such as child care and transportation mean that some people cannot get involved in organizations.

Using volunteers effectively posed problems because it is expensive to recruit, train, retain, supervise and recognize volunteers. When volunteers leave (turnover), the cycle begins again. Burn-out was cited as a growing issue among volunteers. With more stresses, pressure and responsibility associated with being a volunteer, "people are asking themselves why they would take on such high levels of stress to volunteer." Fear of lawsuits and liability is another major disincentive to volunteer. And thus it is hard to get volunteers: major changes in the social and work structure mean that people are not as available to volunteer, and those who are available are thinking twice about donating their time. The downside of volunteers is that they sometimes have unrealistic expectations, they "can themselves be high maintenance and needy" and there are issues of power (people don't want to let go of the position or share the knowledge they hold) among some volunteers.

Funding and fund-raising: These were the second most frustrating tasks of organizations. It was noted that "more time was spent on fundraising than on [the] actual service." It is harder to fund-raise for small organizations because of their lack of connections, low profile and the competition among non-profit groups for donor dollars. Groups identified the lack of money to do their work effectively: they "often work on a shoestring with no money at all." To get grants, organizations must chase the flavour-of-the-month topic. And writing proposals "takes an incredible amount of energy" as well as the ability to "play the game." The expectation of funders that small organizations can find matching money and patch together partnerships is an added burden. For the funding that is available, groups must "hit the moving target" of evasive or changing government rules. The feast/famine of funding is not healthy, and the terms and conditions of grants they do get are sometimes unrealistic.

While much of the important work of small agencies centred on their flexibility to provide local services for local needs and issues, the struggles to survive underscored the vulnerability of being small. Funding was a huge issue for the small agencies. Decreased levels of funding jeopardized services. The lack of core funding for operational costs meant that agencies were chasing project funding for specific, new programs and things, with no secure money for the tried and true programs and services. Planning and sustainability are out of the question when organizations rely on short-term funding. For many, the increased emphasis on applying for money to stay afloat was taking too much time away from doing the work. Some focus group participants were concerned about the ethics of funding sources such as bingo and lotteries. And there was an observation that competing among themselves for increasingly scarce funds was leading to divisions in the community.

Government practices of downloading work to non-profits with decreased levels of funding to provide services are taking a toll. The "government calls us with social problems." Coupled with government practice is the frustration of "still working on issues we have been discussing for years" and too many needs with too few resources.

Public awareness of unpopular topics: Smallness was identified as a problem when trying to get public awareness and understanding of unpopular and uneasy topics (e.g., poor children). It was noted that there is little understanding of what small organizations provide to their communities; as a result, non-profits or their volunteers are not valued.

The fear of lawsuits: A hot topic for small organizations, this fear has impacts on both the range of services delivered and the challenge of recruiting Board members.

A need for access to infrastructure services: The need for services such as phone, fax and photocopier was identified as a relatively inexpensive proposition but of immense value to small organizations.

Service successes: The agencies represented at the focus groups provided a wide variety of services including emergency information, counselling, animal welfare services, volunteer recruitment and placement, family support and information, food, employment services, recreation programs, Internet access, health services, emergency assistance, and education.

Successes for these agencies were the more personal services and support they were able to provide that added to the comfort level of the clients. The specific services were not offered elsewhere locally or were designed specifically to meet local needs making them unique to the community. Small and local meant that the agency had a good knowledge of the community and was known in the community. Being known locally provided accountability to the community because the issues and the actions were visible. Flexibility and adaptability were other identified characteristics of small agencies due to their local roots and their lack of bureaucracy. It was noted that because small agencies are "grassroots," they can "feel what is going on in the community and provide direct feedback" in terms of programs and services.

Other strengths: Agencies were proud of the good management of stretching their limited income. Partnerships and communication among small community agencies were other strengths that promoted better planning and helped support each other in the local network of programs and services. The small size contributed to good communication among staff and volunteers that fostered a committed volunteer base. Passion and commitment to an issue or purpose were other defining characteristics of small agencies.

Boards of Directors: Board members - people charged with legal and financial responsibility for agencies - are increasingly worried about lawsuits and liability. It is not clear if the shrinking pool of volunteers for Boards is linked with the liability issue. Commitment and professionalism are major issues for Boards as they strive to be effective.

Staffing: For small agencies, staffing was cited as a problem. The time commitment, burn-out and low pay/low status make it difficult to find and keep staff. Other struggles for small agencies included the paper burden, the requirement to complete the same forms as large organizations, and the lack of infrastructure (office, phone, fax, Internet, etc.). For some issues, there is a stigma that makes it hard to find volunteers or fund-raise.

Marketing and promotion: The small size of organizations/agencies is a problem in marketing and promotion because the "message often 'gets lost' in the shadow of bigger, similar organizations/agencies." Perhaps overriding the perils of being small are the effects of government downloading to community agencies and their volunteers. Agency representatives noted that it was a misuse of volunteers to patch together services abandoned by governments.