Since the beginning of the semester, a great amount of discussions in class has been about transparency. Some have shared their concerns on being too transparent. Most specifically disclosing information like audit reports to the public. Fear of a nonprofit being scrutinized or financial information being taken out of content has been the reason. While this critique appeared to make sense to me, I had yet formed an opinion on the matter. I needed more information to form an opinion on transparency in nonprofits. Due to this week’s readings on feedback practices, I finally developed an opinion on transparency in nonprofits. Learning about feedback practices in nonprofits was the key puzzle needed to complete the puzzle on my view on transparency in nonprofits. Appropriate for Valentine’s Day, I observed the feedback disagreements funders and providers have as a ‘bad romance’.
This bad romance where funders and providers give feedback without desirable outcomes is due to lack of transparency. Ignoring or avoiding the perceptions of feedback practices in nonprofits puts beneficiaries at-risk. It is important to keep beneficiaries in mind at all times. It seems as if beneficiaries are often lost in the mix when the funders and providers are making important decisions. Sometimes, the, funders and providers are like bickering parents while the child (beneficiary) is watching all this in the process. It is as if the beneficiary is defenseless and has no say of their fate. I do not like the reference to beneficiaries as children. However, the readings have inferred a certain attitude or perception some nonprofit funders and providers have among beneficiaries.
The bad romance among funders and providers can be cured with transparency. Also, I agree with Professor Campbell that the role of beneficiaries should be enhanced in the feedback process. After all, nonprofits yearn for public trust. How can a nonprofit expect to gain public trust when it’s not transparent with itself?
Tamaria,
ReplyDeleteThe "bad romance" metaphor is very clever and works in this setting. I appreciate your observation that the focus on a discussion between funders and providers excludes beneficiaries. That's a circumstance that should concern all of us.