Andrew Taylor on the Business of Arts & Culture
www.artsjournal.com/artfulmanager/

---

home (mobile version) | about this weblog | about Andrew Taylor

---

The five meanings of ''scale''
  Posted: April 27, 2007
  [ view a fully formatted version of this post ]

Philanthropy and social sector specialist Peter Frumkin offers a useful series of posts on the concept of ''scale'' in the nonprofit world. The impulse to increase scale -- in organization size, in constituents served, in geography reached, and so on -- is pervasive throughout the nonprofit system. But few organizations or funders seem to understand the impacts and drawbacks of that impulse. To make the point, Frumkin details five strategic dimensions of scale among nonprofits, and explores the misconceptions and sandtraps within each:

1. scale as financial strength
   The first meaning of scale is related to organizational strength and sustainability.
2. scale as program expansion
   The second meaning of scale refers to the breadth or scope of service, usually measured by the number of clients served.
3. scale as comprehensiveness
   The third meaning of scale refers to a set of programs that are closely linked together and that constitute a coherent set of resources for clients or communities.
4. scale as replication
   Replication is one way to achieve scale, a technique that has been tried and tested in the business sector over a long period of time.
5. scale as accepted doctrine
   The fifth dimension of scale focuses on the power of creating a new and accepted doctrine within a given field.

His conclusion to the series cuts to the core of our collective problem with scale. In our quest to increase our impact, we get confused about what it looks like when we succeed. Says Frumkin:

With all the obstacles preventing precise measurements of effectiveness and program quality in the nonprofit sector, it is very easy to use size as a proxy for impact and to embrace the idea that programs serving large numbers of people are contributing more to public welfare than those targeting smaller populations. In this sense, scale is much easier to measure than effectiveness and it represents an appealing way to change the conversation.

But the danger of such a move lies, of course, in the fact that scale is not a particularly good proxy for effectiveness and that many large programs do not deserve the support they receive, while many smaller programs deserve greater acclaim. Scale is not the problem in the nonprofit sector, nor is it the answer.

For more perspective on the issue of scale among nonprofits, see ''How Nonprofits Get Really Big'' in Stanford Social Innovation Review (thanks to Laura at WolfBrown for the link).