Title: "Why not just one big database?"
The real question is why are there 1.8 million US NPOs when most of the administration, physical facilities, and non-program staff are just duplicative. Answer: job insecurity. In the same way coder jobs are now moved to India while awaiting transfer to China, the unspoken fear of NPO execs is that something efficient will replace the national united way (people have heard that banks provide direct deposit now haven't they?) with what I call "Conglomericares" -- a single overarching charity -- completely eliminating the need for 1.8 million boards, fundraising programs, development directors, etc., etc., etc. with a registry of all programs and their attendant budgets.
cynical - There will be, of course, some feigned "sincere resisitance" throwing out red herring protests but in the end the donors will become savvy to the truth that there is that difference between an NPO saying it cares about its clients and the NPO actually producing that care and that care as efficiently as possible -- eg, bang for buck. -cynical
Basically, this guy was making an argument that all nonprofits did the same thing, were duplicative, and could all consolidate into one major organization, as the medical industries, banks, etc. have done. A very capitalist model that claims market efficiency requires consolidation, was this guy's argument.
There were a couple of excellent responses to this, but I was feeling awfully feisty this morning and sent back the following:
Not to be totally constructive, but...
Why not one big revolution? Instead of spending our time being human administrative stopgaps and trying to soften the blow of global capitalist economy which requires the oppression and disenfranchisement of millions to function, we work to address the fundamental issues that create the necessity of our jobs? I'd like to work myself out of mine, for one.
That way we'd need fewer databases and they could be for more useful things like making sure everyone got their basic needs met *all the time*, not when the tax shelters of corporations decide they want to fund us.
What I'm getting at is that I feel there are political and philosophical differences inherent in the arguments behind centralization and consolidation of data. I also greatly appreciate your rebuttal, Alnisa and Jenny.
Further, the very institutional structures (the US military) that created the initial infrastructure upon which our jobs depend (the internet) understood the strategic advantage of having a distributed, redundant architecture in the event of emergencies. Not necessarily efficient, nor do I agree with the US military around a lot of things, but I do agree with that.
I also strongly agree that it's nuts to assume that the people and issue areas we work on are identical. My 2¢
Yers in techitude,
-Max
The guy, to his credit, sent a very diplomatic response where he thanked us all for engaging in honest debate. My co-workers were so amused by the post I thought I'd throw it up here.
