Perhaps a lesson in post-transparency, the Chair of the Board explained the decision to close the Safe and Sound organization in a letter to the Philadelphia Inquirer.
While I don't claim to know the all the nitty gritty, the letter offers "...that the board of Philadelphia Safe and Sound decided to close the nonprofit organization due to alleged mismanagement of funds or a putative FBI investigation".
According to the Chair, exceedingly fast growth has more to do with the decision to close than anything else (huh?).
Equally interesting was some of the lessons shared about the organization and its designated intermediary status with the city. I believe some of the lessons may apply to many types of nonprofits, not just intermediaries. Here's what he said:
Any government using intermediaries should consider the public-relations and transparency problems associated with a "no-bid" process of contracting with them. Thought also should be given to the composition of an intermediary's board, emphasizing the members' independence from other nonprofit and governmental bodies. And intermediaries should be subject to the same ethical standards as the government.
We have also observed that reliance on large, well-funded intermediaries restricts community input and maintains a caste that, albeit well-meaning, enjoys exclusive access to city officials and decision-making. Intermediaries' activities should be transparent and subject to more community input and oversight.
Finally, the administration might insist that intermediaries rely on more of a mix of private and public dollars.