But we do have loads of existing nonprofits that are having a hard time right now (or at least some are). The money donated from people that can afford it only goes so far.

I agree with Caroline – sometimes people should take a hard look at what is already there. That and they should consider maybe taking a class in grantwriting. And Dwight also has a point about steering clear of mediocrity. We can always use more great ideas!

At one point in your post, you state, “Though many of the folks who attempt to start their own nonprofit organization will fail, the experience that they gain will be substantial and it will help them to become better nonprofit leaders in the long-run. How is that not a good thing?!”

It’s not a good thing because we’re not talking about a for-profit venture that wastes only one or two people’s time and money. By their very nature, nonprofits are public institutions that survive on funds coming from sources that expect their money will help provide successful long-term results, which will not come from a nonprofit that’s around for 1-2 years.

Sure, maybe some good work experience has been gained from those who start these organizations, but I think judging the issue just on that is very selfish because it only takes into account the individual and their professional goals. At some point, it’s essential to realize that more isn’t better and that the best way to enact long-term positive change is to strengthen and innovate the organizations that already have the infrastructure, history, donor base and administrative capabilities to do the job effectively, instead of starting from ground zero.

This reminds me of a discussion we had in an ELNYA book club once. New York is filled with nonprofit dance companies started by individual choreographers to support their unique artistic vision; however, once that choreographer dies, what is left is a company left to administratively and financially support a static repertory. Inevitably, the cultural market becomes saturated with similarly-sized dance companies all competing for the same limited grant opportunities. An employee of one of these companies came up with the idea that, wouldn’t it be great if there were one company that held the rights to choreography of all deceased choreographers and was able to present it all in repertory? That way, the work still survives but it eases the strain on entities that believe in supporting dance but don’t have the resources to donate to every single niche choreographer’s company. It makes so much sense.

Anyway, I guess my bottom line is that the economy has affected nonprofits in the same way it’s affected for-profits: only those with really solid infrastructure, utilization of strategic planning and good business practices, and a realistic grasp of where the funds will come from will survive, and unfortunately I don’t think many “pie in the sky” nonprofits will make the cut. I think in the long-term it’s much more useful to innovate from within and make sure that more solid nonprofits are really adapting to fit the times instead of starting from scratch.