Philanthropy and social sector specialist Peter Frumkin offers a useful series of posts on the concept of ”scale” in the nonprofit world. The impulse to increase scale — in organization size, in constituents served, in geography reached, and so on — is pervasive throughout the nonprofit system. But few organizations or funders seem to understand the impacts and drawbacks of that impulse. To make the point, Frumkin details five strategic dimensions of scale among nonprofits, and explores the misconceptions and sandtraps within each:
- scale as financial strength
The first meaning of scale is related to organizational strength and sustainability. - scale as program expansion
The second meaning of scale refers to the breadth or scope of service, usually measured by the number of clients served. - scale as comprehensiveness
The third meaning of scale refers to a set of programs that are closely linked together and that constitute a coherent set of resources for clients or communities. - scale as replication
Replication is one way to achieve scale, a technique that has been tried and tested in the business sector over a long period of time. - scale as accepted doctrine
The fifth dimension of scale focuses on the power of creating a new and accepted doctrine within a given field.
His conclusion to the series cuts to the core of our collective problem with scale. In our quest to increase our impact, we get confused about what it looks like when we succeed. Says Frumkin:
With all the obstacles preventing precise measurements of effectiveness and program quality in the nonprofit sector, it is very easy to use size as a proxy for impact and to embrace the idea that programs serving large numbers of people are contributing more to public welfare than those targeting smaller populations. In this sense, scale is much easier to measure than effectiveness and it represents an appealing way to change the conversation.
But the danger of such a move lies, of course, in the fact that scale is not a particularly good proxy for effectiveness and that many large programs do not deserve the support they receive, while many smaller programs deserve greater acclaim. Scale is not the problem in the nonprofit sector, nor is it the answer.
For more perspective on the issue of scale among nonprofits, see ”How Nonprofits Get Really Big” in Stanford Social Innovation Review (thanks to Laura at WolfBrown for the link).
I’m glad to see that Peter is helping to sort out the issue of “scale” for nonprofits. It is a deadly bind for small nonprofit arts organizations: they are directed by funders to “grow,” but they rarely have, receive, or understand how to obtain the necessary resources/processes/structures to scale up. Hopefully, this theoretical discussion will translate into better concrete strategies on the part of both funders and arts groups.
Best,
Ann Daly
Ann Daly Arts Consulting LLC
http://www.anndaly.com
anndaly@anndaly.com
Understanding that scale does not equal impact, those five dimensions do seem useful for staff and board to discuss as optional goal areas — sometimes overlapping, sometimes necessitating choices — for resource allocation.
I also share Jonathan’s concern with impact.
However Frumkin does equate scale to impact:
“At its core, the idea of scale is focused on creating a lasting and significant impact. Beyond the broad idea of more or larger impact, the idea of scale becomes more enigmatic when it is subject to sustained scrutiny.”
It may be a matter of broad rather than deep impact. We might need a series on the five (or more) meanings of “impact.”
We are always grappling with breadth vs. depth. in all areas of the field, especially arts in education.
Best regards,
Robin Middleman
Arts Education Coordinator,
New Jersey State Council on the Arts