A New Non Profit Mission - Stopping Mission Creep

"Mission creep" refers to charitable associations evolution over a period of time from a doable, supportable mission to a somewhat different, always larger, fully paid and supported "staff," organization which bears little or vague resemblance to the original altruistic concept.

The justification for this expansion varies from the nominal, probably true, "the need is there and growing," to the hidden; larger organizations raise more money to pay directors and growing staff more money and benefits, seemingly a vicious circle.

By continually expanding the "mission" horizontally-more beneficiaries- and vertically-more mission "components," justification for larger staff receiving more pay is achieved. Achieved as well is a sense of never-ending growth in demand for more support from donors. Carried to it's ultimate conclusion, the "wall" is reached; not enough donors to support the expanded mission(s) and staff costs.

Conclusion: redefine the mission of charitable organizations to include self-limiting geographical and infrastructure parameters, and, concurrently change the fund raising mission to include an "endowment" which would provide the basic operating income necessary to fulfill the mission, through diligent fund management. Donors could be persuaded that an extra ten percent or more annual donation over a ten year period would do the job. Boards of Advisors and Directors should be charged with ensuring that Directors and staff adhere to the revised plan, no exceptions, particularly finding reasons, however altruistic, to dip into the endowment.

Donors may be particularly attracted to the "horizon" concept, knowing that supporting the "new mission" and fund raising goals actually achieves an viewable end to constant solicitation.

Nothing in this concept would preclude future adoption of additional worthwhile and rational extensions of the basic mission; but with the Board setting parameters, particularly restrictions on expansion, the abyss of ever-increasing clamors for support would be muted, even successfully eliminated.

Is this rational, even necessary?

Many business and individual donors are becoming jaded to constant solicitation from an ever increasing number of charitable organizations, to say nothing of requests for ever more support year over year from traditionally sponsored organizations.

The concept is perhaps a bitter pill, "bad tasting medicine for bad habits," but deserves consideration.