Charities with an Expiration Date Hurry to Make a Lasting Mark November 28, 2010 By Maureen West Imagine charities created with their own self-destruct mechanisms built in. Realizing Rights, an eight-year-old New York human-rights group founded by Mary Robinson, former president of Ireland, and Water Advocates, a five-yearold Washington group that promotes safe water in the developing world, will both blink out of existence this month, as planned. Both groups were designed to change the way global problems are perceived and solved, without adding permanently to the nonprofit world’s burden of too many charities. While a small but growing number of foundations, such as Atlantic Philanthropies, have made clear their intentions to spend all their assets and shut down, charities that set their own expiration date are relatively rare. But the leaders of these two groups, and researchers who have studied one of them, say more charities may want to consider the approach. “Seeing the finish line just ahead ratcheted up energy that might not have been there without that deadline,” says Heather Grady, managing director at Realizing Rights. Self-imposed life spans sharply changed the office culture of the two groups, according to their leaders, and quell turf battles among groups that share similar goals.
Mary Robinson (second from left), founder of Realizing Rights, says her organization made a point of spotlighting its collaborators because “they are the ones who will be carrying on the work.”
A limited life span frees charity heads to speak their minds, they say, and to reach out without jealousy or competition to others who can advance the organization’s good works.
Water Advocates, led by David Douglas, was founded in 2005, raising more than $100-million on behalf of people worldwide who lack safe water and basic
1
sanitation. The group created links among nonprofit organizations working on similar issues, infusing them with fresh capital and new avenues of cooperation. Realizing Rights: The Ethical Globalization Initiative, was founded in 2002 by Ms. Robinson to promote global human-rights issues. The decision to be time-bound began with Ms. Robinson, because it fit into her personal plans: She wanted to return home to Ireland, and 2010 was set as an end date. When Ms. Robinson served as United Nations High Commissioner for human rights from 1997 to 2002, she and others often discussed the need to advocate a rights-based approach to global food, water, health, and education. “But I saw few examples of how it could work on the ground,” she says. To advance women’s rights, fair trade, health, and the rights of migrant workers and the poor, her group has worked to change the minds of officials and the objectives of programs in many countries. The group’s limited life span encourages a direct approach: A YouTube video from November 2009 shows a Realizing Rights staff member and Ms. Robinson interviewing street vendors in Monrovia, Liberia, and then negotiating with government officials for improved work policies in that country—there was no time for studies and reports in-between. For those considering a time-limited model, Ms. Robinson advises: “You have to be more interested in getting results than credit.” When the group brought a delegation of Africa’s women leaders to speak at the United Nations this fall, Ms. Robinson chose not to take the stage but to have a woman from the African group speak instead. “We purposely let our partners take the stage—they are the ones who will be carrying on the work,” Ms. Robinson says. Few Personnel Tasks Realizing Rights and Water Advocates were both connected to existing nonprofit groups, which solved many organizational problems. Realizing Rights collaborated with the Aspen Institute, Columbia University, and the International Council on Human Rights Policy. Everyone hired by Realizing Rights became an employee of one of those three groups. “We never had to set up a pension or a health-insurance plan, and without a lot of personnel tasks, I could focus on creative and innovative programs instead of policies and procedures,” says Ms. Grady, of Realizing Rights. Water Advocates is connected to Waterlines, a New Mexico nonprofit.
2
“Time-limited groups may be perceived as less threatening to partners because they aren’t seen as long-term competitors for funding,” says Tosca Bruno-van Vijfeijken, of the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse University. With David Berlan, a colleague at the public-affairs school, she has been studying Realizing Rights as a model for time-limited organizations. The time-limited model might work best for a group with a narrow and achievable goal, say the Syracuse University researchers. In the area of human rights for migrants, for example, Ms. Robinson narrowed the focus to health-worker migration. As a result, Realizing Rights, with help from other groups, successfully pushed to get a code of practice adopted in many countries against the aggressive recruiting of health workers from poor countries—which, she says, can weaken the health systems of those nations. That advocacy work, she says, will be continued by other organizations, including the Aspen Institute. In addition, say the Syracuse University researchers, limited-run charities may work best when built around a strong, possibly irreplaceable leader (such as Ms. Robinson). Too many charities, they say, find it hard to continue after their founder leaves. 'Seen as Neutral’ Water Advocates, which operated on a $740,000 budget in its final year, was supported by foundations and individuals before it started its work five years ago, says Mr. Douglas, a situation that enabled it to focus on its mission right away and added to its credibility with other water organizations, because it wasn’t competing with them for donations. “What I didn’t see five years ago is the value of being an independent organization—you are seen as neutral,” he says. Realizing Rights, which ran on $6-million in its last year, had a harder road at first. “It was difficult to get funding for the very reason that it was time-bound,” Ms. Robinson says. Then she found several “angel partners,” as she called them, including the Atlantic Philanthropies, and others soon followed. Some foundations liked the fact that the group was time-limited and wasn’t seeking money indefinitely. “Many nonprofits talk about their ultimate goal of 'putting themselves out of existence,’ but it rarely happens,” says Tom Kruse, a program officer at the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, in New York. “When you start out knowing that you’re
3
going to end, and actually put a date on it, there is a real difference in how you approach your work.” Mr. Kruse also says that Realizing Rights was compelling from his group’s perspective because its entire mission was centered on developing programs that would empower others. “The ethos and rather brave challenge of Realizing Rights from day one was to focus on creating solutions that didn’t depend on their being part of that equation,” he says. “This requires both guts and maturity.” Winding Down Planning for the end of a limited-run organization is just as critical as planning for a good start, the Syracuse University researchers say. The last year is potentially one of the most difficult for such groups, Ms. Bruno-van Vijfeijken says: “It’s a balancing act. At the same time you are winding down, you want to end in a memorable way.” When organizations merge, the group that is being absorbed might take lessons from Realizing Rights in how to make a meaningful, meticulously planned final year, the researchers said. Realizing Rights told its supporters that as much money was needed for the last year as earlier years, because it had an accelerated calendar of events as it wound up its work. The budget included consultants to help the group end smoothly, communicate its accomplishments, pass on unfinished projects to other organizations, and provide career help to the departing staff. Ms. Robinson wrote letters of reference for even the most junior associates. “You want to treat well the people who worked so hard for your cause,” she says. Despite the fact that Realizing Rights didn’t provide a career ladder for its employees, most of them remained for the full term. In the last year, Realizing Rights hired a career consultant to help employees find their next jobs, and they felt comfortable being open about job hunting. They told the Syracuse University researchers that they were loyal to the group to the end not only because they believed in the cause but also because they felt Ms. Robinson was loyal to them. Without that belief, many staff members might have abandoned ship in the last year, says Ms. Bruno-van Vijfeijken. Realizing Rights is hosting a final ceremony this month in New York to discuss accomplishments, thank supporters, and pass batons to other organizations. “People often feel emotionally connected to organizations,” says Ms. Bruno-van Vijfeijken. “You need to give people an opportunity to process those feelings.”
4
Mr. Douglas, of Water Advocates, advises charities looking to set their own ending date to communicate from the start with groups that will eventually take over the work. While he is confident that the organizations left standing will be stronger for the efforts of his staff, he worries that their institutional knowledge will be dispersed too thinly in those organizations. There’s no easy solution to that problem, he says. But on the bright side, he says, one of the greatest advantages of an end point is the ability to speak frankly. He recalls attending a Washington meeting of government, foundation, and nonprofit leaders, discussing water and sanitation issues in schools in developing countries. When someone suggested a further study, Mr. Douglas strongly suggested that the time had passed for more studies. “What we need now is action,” he said. In the past, he notes, he would have been more diplomatic: “But we only had 65 days left.”
5