Support the Mission. Question the Machine.

The Military Community Nonprofit Industrial Complex

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Day 7: Support the Mission. Question the Machine.

For the last six days, we've talked about the military-connected nonprofit world.

The good.

The bad.

And occasionally the:

“Who thought that was a good idea?”

We've talked about mission creep.

Money.

Form 990s.

Executive compensation.

Volunteer labor.

Lived experience.

Organizational territory.

Resource ethics.

Competition.

Collaboration.

Outputs.

Outcomes.

And the uncomfortable reality that an organization can do extraordinary work in one area while screwing something up spectacularly in another.

So where does that leave us?

Hopefully not at:

“Nonprofits are terrible.”

Because they're not.

The military community needs nonprofits.

It needs good ones.

And one of the best ways to protect good organizations is to stop pretending that supporting their mission requires never questioning how they operate.

Support the mission.

Question the machine.

Those ideas can coexist.

Start With the Mission

Before evaluating an organization, understand what it actually claims to do.

Not what you assume it does.

Not what someone on Facebook says it does.

Not what another organization says it does.

Read the mission.

Read the programs.

Look at who the organization says it serves.

Some organizations have broad missions.

Others intentionally serve narrow populations.

Neither is automatically better.

An organization focused exclusively on one particular group is not necessarily “excluding” everyone else.

Sometimes specialization creates expertise.

The question is whether the organization is honest about its mission and whether its activities actually align with it.

If an organization says it exists to accomplish X, start by asking:

Is it actually doing X?

Simple question.

Surprisingly useful.

Then Look at What It Actually Does

Mission statements are aspirational.

Programs are operational.

What services does the organization provide?

Who uses them?

How frequently?

What are the eligibility requirements?

Are the services free?

Are there geographic limitations?

Are programs delivered directly or through referrals?

Are services duplicated elsewhere?

Does the organization have expertise in the area?

How accessible is the program?

You don't need every answer before supporting an organization.

But you should understand enough to distinguish between:

“This organization says it helps veterans.”

and:

“This is how the organization helps veterans.”

That's a meaningful difference.

Look at Results

We covered this yesterday.

Activity matters.

Results matter more.

If an organization operates an employment program, what happens to participants?

If it provides emergency financial assistance, how much assistance reaches people?

If it runs an advocacy program, what progress can it demonstrate?

If it provides training, what do participants gain from it?

If it operates peer support, how does it know the program is helping?

Not everything valuable can be reduced to numbers.

Qualitative evidence matters too.

Stories.

Feedback.

Case studies.

Participant experiences.

But somewhere between the spreadsheet and the testimonial should be evidence that the organization is accomplishing something.

Busy is not a mission outcome.

Follow the Money Without Assuming the Worst

Financial scrutiny is healthy.

Financial paranoia isn't particularly useful.

Look at the Form 990 when one is available.

Look at annual reports.

Look at audited financial statements when available.

Look at revenue.

Expenses.

Programs.

Compensation.

Fundraising.

Reserves.

Grants.

Contractors.

And trends over several years.

Then apply context.

A large organization will probably have larger expenses than a small one.

A complicated national organization may require highly compensated professional leadership.

Administrative expenses are necessary.

Fundraising costs money.

Technology costs money.

Compliance costs money.

Qualified staff cost money.

A nonprofit spending money is not evidence that something has gone wrong.

The question is whether spending appears reasonable relative to the organization's mission, complexity, finances, and outcomes.

Follow the money.

Just bring your brain with you.

Look at How It Treats Volunteers

You can learn a lot about an organization from how it treats people who have nothing financially forcing them to stay.

Are volunteers trained?

Are expectations clear?

Is their time respected?

Are their skills used appropriately?

Are boundaries respected?

Are contributions acknowledged?

Can volunteers raise concerns?

Are they treated as partners in the mission or simply as free labor?

And volunteers should look in the mirror too.

Are you reliable?

Do you respect confidentiality?

Do you follow policies?

Do you stay within your role?

Do you treat staff respectfully?

Do you understand that donating your time does not give you ownership of the organization?

Healthy volunteer relationships require both sides to behave like adults.

Apparently this is occasionally an ambitious standard.

Look at How It Treats Employees

Employees matter too.

An organization that publicly talks about compassion while internally burning through staff deserves questions.

Turnover happens.

People leave jobs.

Nonprofit work can be difficult.

One unhappy former employee does not prove an organization is dysfunctional.

Patterns matter.

Does leadership develop employees?

Are expectations reasonable?

Are people paid appropriately for the work?

Does the organization provide the resources necessary to do the job?

Is burnout treated as an individual failure or an organizational warning?

Strong organizations need strong people.

Constantly replacing exhausted employees is neither cheap nor particularly mission-driven.

Look at How It Treats the People It Serves

This should be obvious.

But here we are.

Are people treated with dignity?

Are eligibility requirements communicated clearly?

Are services accessible?

Is personal information protected?

Are people pressured to share their stories?

Are complaints taken seriously?

Are people treated differently depending on whether they donate, volunteer, join, or publicly praise the organization?

Are their experiences used responsibly in fundraising and advocacy?

Most importantly:

Does the organization listen to them?

An organization can employ brilliant professionals.

But if nobody is listening to the people actually navigating the system, something important will eventually be missed.

Look at How It Handles Criticism

This might be one of my favorite organizational tests.

Not:

Does the organization ever receive criticism?

Every organization eventually will.

The better question is:

What happens when it does?

Does leadership examine the concern?

Ask questions?

Correct inaccurate information?

Explain the decision?

Change policy when necessary?

Admit mistakes?

Or does criticism immediately produce defensiveness, retaliation, exclusion, personal attacks, or attempts to silence the person raising the issue?

Not every criticism is legitimate.

Some complaints are wrong.

Some are malicious.

Some come from people who misunderstand the organization.

Leadership does not need to reorganize the nonprofit every time somebody posts an angry comment.

But good organizations can distinguish between noise and useful criticism.

And occasionally the person irritating everyone is pointing at something leadership really needs to see.

Look at How It Handles Mistakes

Organizations are going to screw up.

People work there.

That pretty much guarantees it.

The standard cannot be perfection.

The better standard is:

Accountability.

What happened?

Why?

Who was affected?

Was it corrected?

What changed afterward?

An organization willing to say:

“We got this wrong. Here is what we're doing differently.”

may deserve more trust, not less.

Because now you know something important about its culture.

An organization insisting it never makes mistakes is making at least one.

Look at How It Collaborates

No organization can do everything.

Good organizations know their strengths.

Great organizations know their limitations.

Can they refer someone elsewhere when another organization is better equipped to help?

Can they collaborate without demanding all the credit?

Can they share a policy objective with organizations they disagree with elsewhere?

Can they protect legitimate organizational resources without treating the entire issue as proprietary territory?

Do they celebrate coalition victories as coalition victories?

Collaboration doesn't require everyone to become best friends.

It requires recognizing that the person needing help does not particularly care about nonprofit politics.

They want the problem solved.

Look at Advocacy Carefully

If an organization asks you to contact Congress, read what you're being asked to support.

Every time.

I don't care how much you trust the organization.

Read the bill.

Read the section.

Look at amendments.

Look at eligibility.

Look at effective dates.

Look at costs.

Look at offsets.

Look at who benefits.

Look at who might lose something.

Then decide whether you agree.

A reputable organization should not be threatened by informed supporters.

In fact, informed advocates make organizations stronger.

Your membership card does not require you to outsource your critical thinking.

Look at Leadership, But Don't Worship Titles

Good leadership matters enormously.

Executive directors.

CEOs.

Boards.

National commanders.

Presidents.

Committee chairs.

Program directors.

Whatever titles an organization uses.

Strong leaders can build extraordinary organizations.

But titles do not make people infallible.

Leadership should be accountable to governance structures, organizational policies, the mission, and ultimately the population the organization exists to serve.

Respect expertise.

Respect responsibility.

Respect experience.

But don't confuse authority with immunity from questions.

Look for Patterns

One incident rarely tells you everything about an organization.

Neither does one wonderful experience.

Someone may have received extraordinary help.

Someone else may have had a terrible experience.

Both stories matter.

Neither necessarily describes the entire organization.

Look for patterns.

Transparency.

Responsiveness.

Financial stewardship.

Program effectiveness.

Ethical behavior.

Collaboration.

Treatment of staff.

Treatment of volunteers.

Treatment of the community.

Accuracy.

Accountability.

One mistake can happen anywhere.

Repeated behavior is culture.

Don't Demand Perfection

This is important.

If your standard for supporting a nonprofit is:

“They must never make a mistake.”

Congratulations.

You will shortly be supporting zero organizations.

People make mistakes.

Boards make mistakes.

Executives make mistakes.

Volunteers make mistakes.

Programs fail.

Advocacy strategies fail.

Technology fails.

Communications get screwed up.

Sometimes someone sends the email that absolutely should not have been sent.

The question isn't whether something went wrong.

The question is what the organization does next.

Good organizations learn.

Bad habits get defended.

Ugly behavior gets institutionalized.

There is a difference.

You Don't Have to Leave Because You Disagree

This is another point worth making.

You can disagree with an organization and stay.

You can challenge a policy.

Ask questions.

Vote differently.

Advocate internally.

Suggest reforms.

Run for leadership.

Join a committee.

Push for transparency.

Sometimes the most useful critics of an organization are people who genuinely believe in its mission.

Walking away is an option.

It isn't the only one.

Sometimes organizations improve because someone cared enough to stay and make them uncomfortable.

And You Are Allowed to Walk Away

There is another side.

You are not obligated to remain loyal to an organization forever.

If its mission changes.

If its values no longer align with yours.

If leadership repeatedly ignores serious concerns.

If volunteer service becomes unhealthy.

If you no longer believe the organization is effective.

If your time could accomplish more elsewhere.

Leave.

You can appreciate what an organization once did for you and decide it is no longer where you belong.

You can support some programs without supporting the entire organization.

You can donate elsewhere.

Volunteer elsewhere.

Advocate independently.

Organizations are tools for accomplishing missions.

They are not lifetime loyalty contracts.

Donors Can Vote With Their Dollars

If you believe an organization is effective, support it.

If you value a specific program, ask whether donations can be directed toward it.

If financial transparency is poor, ask questions before donating.

If another organization produces better outcomes, consider supporting that one.

Donors have tremendous influence.

Use it thoughtfully.

Not every disagreement requires withdrawing support.

But neither should donations continue automatically because:

“I've always given to them.”

The organization should continue earning trust.

Volunteers Can Vote With Their Time

Money is not the only valuable resource.

Time may be even more valuable.

Before volunteering, ask:

Does this organization use my skills well?

Do I believe in the mission?

Can I realistically meet the commitment?

Is this work meaningful?

Am I learning something?

Am I helping someone?

Is the environment healthy?

Your volunteer hours have value.

Spend them where they matter.

Organizations Should Want Informed Supporters

The strongest nonprofit community isn't one where everyone claps.

It's one where people care enough to ask questions.

Donors who understand finances.

Volunteers who understand programs.

Members who understand governance.

Advocates who understand legislation.

Boards that understand outcomes.

Leaders willing to hear uncomfortable information.

Employees empowered to identify problems.

Communities willing to hold organizations accountable while also recognizing the extraordinary work they do.

That isn't hostility.

That's stewardship.

Good, Bad, and Ugly

Over this week, we've seen all three.

The good: Military-connected nonprofits fill critical gaps, provide expertise, create communities, support people during extraordinarily difficult moments, develop policy, advocate before government, employ talented professionals, mobilize volunteers, and accomplish things individuals could rarely accomplish alone.

The bad: Organizations can drift from their missions, chase funding, measure activity instead of outcomes, undervalue volunteers, duplicate services, become territorial, communicate poorly, or make decisions that simply don't work.

The ugly: Organizations can protect themselves at the expense of the mission, exploit labor, manipulate metrics, misuse resources, silence legitimate criticism, guard territory, or become more interested in money, access, influence, and branding than the people they were created to serve.

And here's the important part:

Good, bad, and ugly can exist inside the same organization.

Sometimes at the same time.

That's why simplistic labels aren't particularly useful.

Accountability Protects Good Organizations

There is a tendency to think criticism damages nonprofits.

Bad criticism can.

False accusations can.

Rumors can.

Social-media pile-ons can.

But legitimate accountability can make organizations stronger.

It identifies problems before they become scandals.

It improves programs.

It protects donors.

It protects volunteers.

It protects employees.

It protects the people receiving services.

And it protects the credibility of the nonprofit community as a whole.

The organizations doing exceptional work should want meaningful standards.

Because accountability helps distinguish them from organizations that aren't.

Support the Mission. Question the Machine.

The military community needs nonprofits.

It needs national organizations with enough influence to walk into Congress.

It needs tiny local organizations where someone knows exactly which food pantry still has appointments this week.

It needs professional staff.

It needs volunteers.

It needs donors.

It needs researchers.

It needs advocates.

It needs peer mentors.

It needs people willing to sit through board meetings that probably should have been emails.

It needs all of them.

What it doesn't need is blind loyalty.

You can love an organization and ask questions.

You can donate and ask where the money goes.

You can volunteer and expect your time to be respected.

You can use services and provide criticism.

You can belong to an organization and disagree with its advocacy.

You can recognize extraordinary work while pointing out something that needs to change.

Those positions are not contradictory.

They're responsible.

So support the organizations doing good work.

Donate when you can.

Volunteer when you can.

Share useful resources.

Thank the people doing difficult jobs.

Give credit when organizations get things right.

Be fair when they make honest mistakes.

But ask questions.

Look at results.

Follow the money.

Read the Form 990.

Read the legislation.

Pay attention to how people are treated.

Watch what happens when someone disagrees.

And periodically ask the question that has been running through this entire week:

Who is this actually serving?

Because the nonprofit isn't the mission.

The brand isn't the mission.

The fundraiser isn't the mission.

The congressional access isn't the mission.

The annual report isn't the mission.

The organization itself isn't the mission.

The people are.

Support the mission.

Question the machine.

Appreciate the good.

Improve the bad.

Call out the ugly when necessary.

And if asking reasonable questions makes someone uncomfortable?

Well...

Maybe we found a question worth asking.