A Better Word for “Nonprofit”
Is there a better term for “nonprofit”? A recent article by Dan Pallotta at Harvard Business blogs begins, “Anyone who has thought about it for more than a nanosecond agrees that ‘nonprofit’ is about the worst possible summary we could give of ourselves and our work.” He goes on to argue that the nonprofit sector could stand to define itself in terms of what it is, rather than what it is not. (It’s a great post, and well worth reading, as are the unusually thoughtful comments that accompany it.) Pallotta’s suggestion is we move to using the term “Humanity Sector.”
This isn’t the first time I’ve come across the idea of renaming the nonprofit sector. Tom Suddes makes a compelling case in favour of using “for impact” instead — though personally, I’m not sure that distinguishes this sector from the business & government sectors in any useful way. Surely we all want to make an impact? (That being said, if you ever get to hear him talk about fundraising, do yourself a favour and go — he has some amazing insights and a great deal of charm.)
I’m also not convinced of the “humanity” moniker, because the nonprofit sector includes a lot of organizations that really don’t focus on humanity — there are astronomy educators and environmental justice warriors and all kinds of other groups for whom “humanity” isn’t the emphasis. I’ve heard “third sector” (which feels awkward & low-priority), “non-governmental” (okay, but uninspiring), “community profit” (can’t the community profit from corporate & governmental work as well?), and “public benefit” (see “community profit”) — but none of those work for me either.
Although I love the idea of moving away from “nonprofit,” I’d really like us to find an option that is both broadly inclusive of the wide variety of organizations within the sector, and clearly distinct from the focus of for-profit and governmental actors. Because the key differences that mark nonprofits are legal in nature, perhaps “nonprofit” is the simplest option.
But there is one other suggestion I quite like, with a couple of reservations: “the delta sector,” as proposed by Robert K. Ross in The Chronicle of Philanthropy. Yes, it sounds a bit like a Star Trek reference. But here’s his pitch:
Robert K. Ross, president of the California Endowment, a health foundation in Los Angeles, says he’s got just the word: “delta,” the Greek letter that signifies change. So, no more talk about the “nonprofit sector,” he said at the closing session of the National Conference on Volunteering and Service.
It’s now the “delta sector.”
“We need to be more intentionally about change and transformation,” he said. “Business as usual is leaving too many families broken and too many families and folks with hopelessness and despair.”
I’m not a hundred percent sold on “delta sector” — I’m not sure it works for arts organizations (or many conservative groups that actively resist change), and I’m also not convinced that change is a worthwhile motive in and of itself — but I like the sentiment behind it, and indeed behind all these ideas. It warms my former-English-major heart that so many good people are putting so much brain power towards thinking about the importance of language, and I’d love to see the nonprofit / for impact / humanity / delta sector wrestle with this some more and see if we can’t come up with a better name.
January 11th, 2010 at 2:05 pm
How about “pre-enjoyed profit” :) just call it what it is – much easier. Are you trying to hide something?
January 13th, 2010 at 2:18 pm
So I thought about this some after reading the initial post, and came up with “Advocational Sector” as a good descriptor for what we currently call NFPs. It seems to me to be a fundamental difference between a for-profit corporation (which, I guess, could be seen as an organization that advocates for profit on behalf of its constituents). This also distinguishes from what we currently call “mission-based” organizations, which are generally for-profits which have an additional goal, because while a company may have a mission, it is not necessarily to advocate on behalf of a group or entity. Advocational is also a less judgmental word than “Lobbbyist” which is something of a synonym.
Advocational sector also easily describes both conservative & progressive organizations I think quite well.
Lauren, quite adroitly, asked me on Twitter if this would cover arts groups. Looking at the definition of “advocate” as being “to speak in support of something” then yes, it does. Arts NFPs generally exist to either a)raise funds for art/artists and/or b)raise awareness for art/artists, which I think is covered under the admittedly very big tent that is “advocational sector”.
January 13th, 2010 at 2:29 pm
The issue with Advocational Sector in Canada anyway would be/might be that the Canadian govt is very touchy about “advocacy” and non-profits or specifically charities. If you are seen to be an advocate in any real way you will lose your charitable status/jeopardize it. So I’m not sure that one hits the mark.