No one with money seems to support the program I think is most important to my community of everything we offer. The grants are always restricted to other programs. Local donors give, but not enough to matter; our community is poor. The program delivery requires health professionals; we cannot just use volunteers. The participant satisfaction rate is VERY high, but it looks as if we’ll have to end the program. Do we have an ethical alternative?

With the limited information I have, I see two areas to be investigated before considering alternatives. One is that the program really isn’t of high value, and the other is that it is being presented poorly to those with money.

Satifaction does not equal value

A high satisfaction rate among participants is not a guarantee of high value. For example, a charity serving low income people might run clinics on how to obtain subsidized housing. With that information, the participants get registered and move up waiting lists faster; they are, therefore, very satisfied. However, the program does nothing whatever to improve the community; it just changes the order on the waiting list. It doesn’t even increase the supply of subsidized housing, let alone address the root causes that result in a need for subsidized housing. A knowledgeable funder would avoid such a program because its overall outcomes are not positive. The program is not important except to give an advantage to some community members living in poverty over others.

So I recommend you take a very hard look at how the program has been evaluated in the past, and make sure the evaluation is focused on community betterment. How has it benefited overall quality of life in the community? How will continuing it further benefit the community? How could it be changed to increase its value? What do partners and referral agencies say about it? How do they rate it compared not only to your other programs, but to programs of other organizations with related missions or clients? You think it is the most important program, but you need to confirm this view with the community.

Even a funder who will not fund continued operation of the program might agree to fund such an evaluation if you can present some preliminary arguments. In estimating the cost of an evaluation, remember it will have more credibility if conducted by someone external to your organization.

If you can confirm real benefits to the community, you will have a better case to take to potential funders. What is more important, you will have a better case to take to the community. Explain to both that the program cannot continue without community support. If it is really important, the community will not let it die.

Make use of your community

Now, in saying that, I have not forgotten that your community is poor. But I have assumed you mean low income, not an area with almost nothing after a natural disaster like a bad hurricane.

If so, the community has many assets. The right approach can mobilize those assets around the programs the community values most. An asset-based approach thinks of “lots of people out of work” as “many people with time to volunteer, start new businesses or seek continuing education.” A high vacancy rate means there is unused space. A slowdown in office work means the photocopier isn’t in constant use and could be made available.

Since I have no idea what kind of health program you are running, let me make some guesses. You need space for health care professionals to see people. There may be a number of underutilized places that would host a weekly clinic, so people wouldn’t have to take public transit to access the program. Perhaps you need transportation for providers or clients; even very small businesses in your area will have vans or trucks that drive around the community all the time. Small businesses are often interested in helping in ways that do not involve writing a cheque. Need storage space? Someone has underutilized space to provide for little or nothing. Put out community-wide calls for help; you cannot predict who will answer. The Community Diaper Bank in Tucson, the first of its kind, was built almost entirely with this approach.

Many health professionals are seeking work, working part-time for lack of full-time work, or are recently retired. Students in health care courses may be seeking field work as part of their courses or to build their resumes, and older health care professionals may be looking for ways to give back as they move toward retirement. You can use such people to supplement your staff (subject to any union agreement you may have), and volunteer as health professionals or as skilled assistants under the supervision of qualified professionals. People from outside of the health care field might volunteer in other ways, such as making clinic attendees feel welcome or handling paperwork (with due care for personal privacy). Payroll is likely your highest cost, so focus thinking about cost savings there first.

Cutting costs and proving benefits essential to securing funding

If you can show a grantmaker that you have contained costs, or enabled expansion within the current budget, that can be very appealing. Remember to identify the community benefits first though, or not a penny of resources can be justified.

Suppose you make the case for community benefits, approach everyone you identify as possible, and still have insufficient funds to carry on. You may need to suspend the program rather than fail to meet payroll or misuse restricted funds. This approach should be a last resort as it is costly both in goodwill and in retention of good service providers.

An alternative is to move the program to an organization that is in a better position to run it. Perhaps most of their funds are not restricted, and they can shift resources to this more important program. Staff could be transferred, and volunteers asked to switch organizations. Such a transfer is far, far preferable to ceasing to meet a community priority, or just ending a program and hoping someone else will pick it up.

If all these approaches fail, you may be forced to conclude that the program really is not that important compared to other current community priorities. You should focus on what the community has now clarified it needs most for now, and perhaps revitalize this program in better economic times or after more urgent needs have been met.

Since 1992, Jane Garthson has dedicated her consulting and training business to creating better futures for our communities and organizations through values-based leadership. She is a respected international voice on governance, strategic thinking and ethics. Jane can be reached at jane@garthsonleadership.ca.

To submit a dilemma for a future column, or to comment on a previous one, please contact editor@charityvillage.com. For paid professional advice about an urgent or complex situation, contact Jane directly.

Disclaimer: Advice and recommendations are based on limited information provided and should be used as a guideline only. Neither the author nor CharityVillage.com make any warranty, express or implied, or assume any legal liability for accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information provided in whole or in part within this article.

Please note: While we ensure that all links and email addresses are accurate at their publishing date, the quick-changing nature of the web means that some links to other websites and email addresses may no longer be accurate.