Friends of Scouting

[Guest]

Did you work for a non-profit that's only income was through soliciting donations? or did your company actually make or sell something, or offer a service? Cause theres a BIG difference in many of our minds between the two.

That's what I've been saying this entire thread!

A non-profit or government and a for-profit capitalist organization should not have DIFFERENT methods of cost outlays expecially when it comes to full time salary positions. The difference should be in how the money/investment is brought into the company, not how the money is spent to come up with a quality product. Good quality Career people will not work for non-profits if private markets will pay more. So what you will be left with are the crap - or the independently wealthy folks who has nothing better to do.

If you're willing to sacrifice quality for cost - sometimes you don't have an option if the influx of monies is small - then you sacrifice it, same as a for-profit company who has to make black every year. But if you want a quality product and has the money to support it, then you pay market price for quality.

That's why the government is a ginormous mess! They don't practice capitalist principles that are tried and true. Nobody in government can make it in private industry. So, if you want your non-profit to be as low quality as government services, then okay. But I expect more from the BSA.

Now, of course, if you feel the BSA is a poor quality product, then they're wasting their $200K and you shouldn't support that organization.

Edited February 28, 2014 by anatess

[mnn727]

A non-profit or government and a for-profit capitalist organization should not have DIFFERENT methods of cost outlays expecially when it comes to full time salary positions. .

That's YOUR opinion, it is NOT the opinion of many in this thread including me.

People do have different opinions you know, and that doesn't make them wrong.

[Guest]

That's YOUR opinion, it is NOT the opinion of many in this thread including me.

People do have different opinions you know, and that doesn't make them wrong.

I didn't say you were wrong.

But what I said is not stated out of my butt. It was part of my Economic Analysis Class. I had to build System Engineering models for it.

[Just_A_Guy]

That's what I've been saying this entire thread!

A non-profit or government and a for-profit capitalist organization should not have DIFFERENT methods of cost outlays expecially when it comes to full time salary positions. The difference should be in how the money/investment is brought into the company, not how the money is spent to come up with a quality product. Good quality Career people will not work for non-profits if private markets will pay more. So what you will be left with are the crap - or the independently wealthy folks who has nothing better to do.

What this theory leaves out--and I'd be interested to hear how the academics address it--is that (to take your earlier example) the Bank of America Salt Lake region doesn't have thirty thousand people who are currently working for that institution for free, as the Great Salt Lake Council does.

Let us take a hypothetical scoutmaster who is also--say--an attorney by trade; and whose busy office bills at $200 per hour. Once a month, that attorney leaves work at noon to go camping with his 12-year-old scouts. That rank-and-file volunteer's'dedication to the cause of Scouting has made him willing to forego sixty billable hours per year, worth perhaps as much as $12,000 in revenue. And while your nonlawyer (or poorly-paid lawyer, like myself) may not be able to quantify their own time in that many dollars--their sacrifices are often as significant--or more so--to themselves, as the $200/hour lawyer's sacrifices are to himself.

So why wouldn't we expect a corporate type to sacrifice similarly? When you've got tens of thousands of people (presumably from all professions, education levels, and walks of life) who are giving of their time, talents, and money to make the program work; I have a really hard time accepting the "but nobody else will do as good a job for less!" argument. If it were universally true [that people in paid positions with nonprofit agencies perform better], then BSA would naturally try to convert as many volunteer positions into paid jobs as its budget would allow.

Any way you slice it, the bottom line is still that BSA is still demanding that its volunteers/donors make more of a financial sacrifice and endure a lower standard of living than its governors (honestly, I have a hard time calling them "leaders" in the context of this discussion) are prepared to accept. What I take away from all this talk about salaries being in line with the "industry standard" is that we need to pay high salaries to our executives in order to make up for their lack of personal commitment to the cause. That's OK with me if the cause is selling widgets. It's not OK with me if the cause is - say - the aims formally embraced by the BSA, and there are thirty thousand other workers (and hundreds of thousands more donors) who do have that commitment to the cause.

Edited February 28, 2014 by Just_A_Guy
Clarifying

[notquiteperfect]

What this theory leaves out--and I'd be interested to hear how the academics address it--is that (to take your earlier example) the Bank of America Salt Lake region doesn't have thirty thousand people who are currently working for that institution for free, as the Great Salt Lake Council does.

Took the words right out of my mouth!

[Guest]

What this theory leaves out--and I'd be interested to hear how the academics address it--is that (to take your earlier example) the Bank of America Salt Lake region doesn't have thirty thousand people who are currently working for that institution for free, as the Great Salt Lake Council does.

Let us take a hypothetical scoutmaster who is also--say--an attorney by trade; and whose busy office bills at $200 per hour. Once a month, that attorney leaves work at noon to go camping with his 12-year-old scouts. That rank-and-file volunteer's'dedication to the cause of Scouting has made him willing to forego sixty billable hours per year, worth perhaps as much as $12,000 in revenue. And while your nonlawyer (or poorly-paid lawyer, like myself) may not be able to quantify their own time in that many dollars--their sacrifices are often as significant--or more so--to themselves, as the $200/hour lawyer's sacrifices are to himself.

So why wouldn't we expect a corporate type to sacrifice similarly? When you've got tens of thousands of people (presumably from all professions, education levels, and walks of life) who are giving of their time, talents, and money to make the program work; I have a really hard time accepting the "but nobody else will do as good a job for less!" argument. If it were universally true [that people in paid positions with nonprofit agencies perform better], then BSA would naturally try to convert as many volunteer positions into paid jobs as its budget would allow.

Any way you slice it, the bottom line is still that BSA is still demanding that its volunteers/donors make more of a financial sacrifice and endure a lower standard of living than its governors (honestly, I have a hard time calling them "leaders" in the context of this discussion) are prepared to accept. What I take away from all this talk about salaries being in line with the "industry standard" is that we need to pay high salaries to our executives in order to make up for their lack of personal commitment to the cause. That's OK with me if the cause is selling widgets. It's not OK with me if the cause is - say - the aims formally embraced by the BSA, and there are thirty thousand other workers (and hundreds of thousands more donors) who do have that commitment to the cause.

This is quantified in the model through compensation versus commitment (longevity) versus quality. In Sys Eng models, we rely on things such as Statistical Studies (surveys, etc.) or historical quantification or data collection and sometimes peer reviewed guesstimates (can be from related models or just arbitrary) if nothing else is available to build a relationship between two variables.

Ok, one of my projects was a proposal for a Meth Rehabilitation program in Missouri. So, one of the elements in this proposal is to determine the number of FTE's required as opposed to volunteers and the compensation schedule. The FTE positions are identified by the need for reliable constant specific-competency-skill presence. Voluntary positions are identified by "revolving door" competency where a skill competency can be obtained by specific written procedural instructions or training programs. The Program Director, for example, cannot be a volunteer. It has to be an FTE position with resume matching the qualifications because the Program cannot survive a "revolving door" Director position (this is determined through modeling). The Psych Doctor has to be FTE as well because the program can't survive a Doctor who is not obligated to follow through with the evals. A minimum number of FTE's to achieve the required quality is determined. So then the Compensation Package for these positions is determined by modeling the relationships between Quality versus Compensation, Longevity versus Compensation, Quality versus Longevity (just one out of many relationships analyzed). Note that Longevity or Commitment is not an assumed variable because you can't just "hope the FTE is committed enough to stay because he's a good guy". It is a controlled variable - that is, the program has to provide the right environment for Commitment.

There is absolutely no relationship between FTE's and Volunteers in a manner such as - Compensation Package of FTE's is affected by number of Volunteers - because they're not related. What can impact FTE's is the Sponsorship - a Religious Organization (such as a Meth Rehab run by the Catholic Church) may end up with very very low Compensation Packages when the FTE's are a Church-supplied resource, such as Diocesan Priests. These people would still have the same resume requirements and end up with the same quality and longevity measures for much lower Compensations because the Catholic Church Ministry are FTE's with a vow of poverty.

So, after identifying the FTE's needed, you can combine this cost with the other fixed costs to come up with feasibility models on the expected investment sources. For the Meth Rehab, we modeled a successful pitch to the government of Missouri to provide most of the funding (has to produce models to present to State/County/City councils showing a ROI for funds spent on rehab versus repeat incarcerations and working with the existing govt rehab programs, etc). So of course, we also have to show an unsuccessful govt funding pitch where we take how much we expect from voluntary donations... and model that. So, we have a Cost. Then we have Expected Donations. We also model an interruption of donations - such as Natural Disasters or Terrorist attacks that can divert donations - and predict survivability of the program. The model ended up that the Rehab is not feasible without govt funding.

There's a lot of moving parts that go to a project like a Meth Rahab program. And that's not even a quarter the size and commitments of the BSA.

There is nothing in the models that quantify the intensity of sacrifices made to impact the Cost of running a Meth Rehab. The only thing that impacts is how much donations (in hours or monies) the organization can expect to receive accounting for the intensity of the sacrifice. Note that any changes to the Cost affects Quality of Services so that you can only shave off as much cost as you are willing to accept the resulting Quality. So that if your expected investments cannot meet the Cost of the required Quality, the project is not feasible.

If only government would hire System Engineers before starting a project....

By the way, Florida DOT has a really good team of Sys Engs... they planned the jumbotron project to aid in traffic redirection during Hurricane evacuations. And now, that jumbotron is being used for things like Amber Alerts and such. They also came up with the models for Obama's bullet train project which gave the governor concrete reason to decline the offer.

And I know I'm going into a lot of long-winded mumbo jumbo sounding stuff here and I apologize if this post makes no sense whatsoever... But it's called Engineering for a reason, and you know what they say about the incomprehensibility of engineers.

[Just_A_Guy]

So then the Compensation Package for these positions is determined by modeling the relationships between Quality versus Compensation, Longevity versus Compensation, Quality versus Longevity (just one out of many relationships analyzed). Note that Longevity or Commitment is not an assumed variable because you can't just "hope the FTE is committed enough to stay because he's a good guy". It is a controlled variable - that is, the program has to provide the right environment for Commitment.

I think it interesting that "commitment" wouldn't be taken into account in evaluating "quality".

There is absolutely no relationship between FTE's and Volunteers in a manner such as - Compensation Package of FTE's is affected by number of Volunteers - because they're not related.

Seems to me that they are only non-related if every one of the volunteers is unqualified to be a full-time employee. Otherwise we're ignoring the law of supply and demand.

There is nothing in the models that quantify the intensity of sacrifices made to impact the Cost of running a Meth Rehab. The only thing that impacts is how much donations (in hours or monies) the organization can expect to receive accounting for the intensity of the sacrifice. Note that any changes to the Cost affects Quality of Services so that you can only shave off as much cost as you are willing to accept the resulting Quality.

With all due respect, Anatess; you're telling me that the academics and the corporate types who employ them have developed models that refuse to acknowledge the willingness of vast segments of the population to work for the entity at a discounted rate--but you aren't telling me why they feel it acceptable to do this. As I hint above, it seems to me that they're artificially depressing the labor supply curve so as to justify a higher equilibrium (salary). Regional leaders of Boys and Girls Clubs and GSUSA appear to earn about half of what their BSA counterparts do.

And I know I'm going into a lot of long-winded mumbo jumbo sounding stuff here and I apologize if this post makes no sense whatsoever... But it's called Engineering for a reason, and you know what they say about the incomprehensibility of engineers.

Sheesh. And people complain about lawyers!

[Guest]

I think it interesting that "commitment" wouldn't be taken into account in evaluating "quality".

You might have missed it. Commitment and Longevity is one variable.

Seems to me that they are only non-related if every one of the volunteers is unqualified to be a full-time employee. Otherwise we're ignoring the law of supply and demand.

It is unrelated because FTE and volunteer are two completely different roles in the organization. The Commitment of an FTE can be managed by the Organization - and you hit a major factor into Commitment: Supply and Demand. Because, an FTE is under contractual obligation to provide work. A volunteer cannot be controlled. A volunteer can quit anytime without any measurable/controllable reason. Hence, there are roles in the Organization that cannot be fulfilled by Volunteers. These are usually the pillar roles that keep an organization running.

With all due respect, Anatess; you're telling me that the academics and the corporate types who employ them have developed models that refuse to acknowledge the willingness of vast segments of the population to work for the entity at a discounted rate--but you aren't telling me why they feel it acceptable to do this. As I hint above, it seems to me that they're artificially depressing the labor supply curve so as to justify a higher equilibrium (salary). Regional leaders of Boys and Girls Clubs and GSUSA appear to earn about half of what their BSA counterparts do.

Sheesh. And people complain about lawyers!

I honestly have zero clue what you're trying to say here. System Engineers are not Academic Types... And willingness to work at discount rates are modeled if there's evidence that the condition exists that meet the target quality measures. Engineers don't just pull relationships out of thin air. And telling me I'm artificially depressing the labor supply is quite insulting. This is what I do for a living... or would still be if I didn't decide to take care of kids.

I don't know what the BSA does like I told you before. I'm not arguing whether BSA executives are paid more than what they're worth. I'm saying that FTEs of non-profits have to compete in the labor market. And, basing on how much the Executives for the places I've worked for make, I don't see where the BSA is overpaid. Because, telling me they should be paid less because they're non-profit does not compute in my head.

By the way, that place I mentioned before that paid my boss ~$200k... That was non-profit. Blue Cross and Blue Shield. Sure, they sell insurance so that's how the money comes in. But yea, we used to get beat up by the press for low-balling HMO providers while Executives get paid lots of money as anon-profit.... this is a common gripe.

Edited March 3, 2014 by anatess