Can scaling help nonprofits make meaningful progress?

Scaling, as a philanthropic strategy, can help nonprofits make meaningful progress against social problems, the audience concluded at Baruch College’s second Great Debate.

But the two sides weren’t that far apart to begin with.

“Scaling is like apple pie, everybody is for scaling, so we’re doing a bit of dissection here,” explained Doug Bauer, executive director of The Clark Foundation. He debated Chuck Harris, portfolio manager and director of capitol aggregation for the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation at the June 19 event.

Harris represented the viewpoint that scaling – or the process of expanding the size and reach of successful programs to increase their impact – can benefit nonprofits and help them grow.

To say that Bauer was against the concept of philanthropic scaling would be unfair. Rather, he argued there are other areas on which nonprofits need to focus before scaling up. For example, to take full advantage of scaling’s benefits, nonprofits must find a way to address internal funding issues and manage their relationships with the government stakeholders who often infuse the resources necessary for supporting growth.

The debate kicked-off with some levity as Bauer placed two boxing gloves on the table. “I know what Chuck’s capable of so I’m going to be ready,” said Bauer, eliciting laughs from the packed room.

The debate was held to consider both sides of a topic that is both significant to the New York Nonprofit sector and has received a lot of attention. It was moderated by Nadya K. Shmavonian, partner, SeaChange Capital Partners and director of the Nonprofit Repositioning Fund in Philadelphia. The event was co-sponsored by SeaChange Capital Partners and the Center for Nonprofit Strategy and Management at Baruch College’s Marxe School of Public and International Affairs.

Before the debate even began, a vote revealed most attendees already supported philanthropic scaling. When asked “Can scaling help nonprofits make meaningful progress against social problems?” 50 percent voted yes, 37 percent were unsure, and 13 percent voted no. However, as the debaters provided their own definition of scaling the subtle distinctions between both sides became clear.

“We think about scaling as the maximum, feasible, sustainable reach – with quality – for effective intervention,” said Harris. His argument seemed to ask providers to consider the question how big can you get?

“We define scaling as actions that use established product services or interventions to serve more people,” said Bauer – whose argument seemed to be asking: How much can you do?

They both acknowledged the benefits of scaling but Bauer expressed concerns about pursuing the expansion of programs during a time of government cutbacks.

“Scaling and growth in an era of reduced government funding can be a fool’s game,” said Bauer. “With the tax-cut of 2017 we will likely see government funding reduced.”

Harris made the point that the priority should be maximizing a program‘s benefit to society.

“To me it feels self-evident that something that’s working to change the lives of young people ought to be made available to as many of them as possible.”

Harris highlighted Harlem Children’s Zone as an example of successful scaling, though he was quick to point out that they still had work to do.

“It’s not perfect. They’ve built out their desired geographic footprint and are now helping more than 100 young people graduate college annually,” said Harris. “Is that enough? No. God bless them for trying to figure out the key to financial sustainability.”

Bauer argued that scaling alone will not help address larger problems that plague nonprofits and that building relationships with government officials would be key.

“We have issues with politicians on both sides of the aisle, and they have a complete misunderstanding of what you guys do, and how you get it done,” said Bauer. “That has to change dramatically, but scaling won’t help with that.”

Ariel Zwang, CEO of Safe Horizons, agreed that the sector’s ability to scale solutions would necessitate deeper relationships with government.

“All the examples I’ve heard were that sustainability comes from government assuming the cost of the program and the program model,” said Zwang.

By the end of the debate, few observers had been swayed from their original perspectives: 49 percent were for scaling, 38 percent were unsure, and 12 were against scaling.

Bauer concluded however, that new solutions must be found to help nonprofits stay solvent.

“Right now, we’re in the Einstein definition of insanity,” Bauer said. “We are doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome. That has to change.”