When there's money on the tabel, who's mission should a nonprofit pursue: government's and or businesses' or it's own?
But there's a new "kid" on the block called the Social Impact Bond and an article in the Washington Post describes a recently agreed-upon effort between New York and Goldman Sachs. The idea is that
Private investors put up money for a program with a specific goal. If it’s achieved, the government pays back the investors, with a profit. If not, the government pays nothing.
Such bonds offer investors a potential return on their money and give government cash upfront to start a new initiative. And if it succeeds, the theory goes, taxpayers save money, spending less to curb recidivism than to keep jailing repeat offenders, for example.
But what if a nonprofit recognizes that solving one social problem at the back end doesn't at all address the problems that actually contribute to these problems? For instance the business community will make grants to United Way over paying liveable wages to its employees?
I very much endorse being results focused but when a nonprofit recognizes that just pursuing the dollar doesn't singulalry address change in the long-range end, should it get into the business? Should the operating principle really be: the only thing wrong with 'tainted money is there 'taint enough of it?
Comments