Meyer Memorial Trust

I've become a fan, and use regularly, the term "social benefit organizations."

I think it focuses appropriately on the general mission of what we do as a sector. As you mentioned, it also puts the emphasis on what we do do, rather than what we don't.

I find this term commonly used in several metro regions, but I haven't heard it used as often in Portland/Oregon.

marie - i agree with you. words matter.

with the increasingly significant impact non-profits are having in focusing the conversation and addressing societal issues, i believe a name change is in order.

i think the general public does not realize the importance of this 'third leg of the stool' (public, private, n-p) in making our country work well.

you ask whether you are being weird -- weirdness makes the world work!

cynthia griffin

I like to use the term community-based organization, charitable organization, philanthropic organization, etc., depending on what type of "non-profit" it is. I agree that non-profit doesn't state what the organization is and is a term of what it is not. But I would rather spend the time figuring out how to support our communities than worry about the taxonomy, unless the taxonomy hurts our clients.

One interesting part of this is how the non-profit and for-profit are increasingly overlapping, with non-profits often starting up for-profit businesses to fund their non-profit work; and how for-profits are using their standing/involvement/support of non-profits to bolster sales in their for-profit businesses. We could use language similar to "socially responsible" businesses perhaps - "socially responsible endeavors"?

The difference really does get down to profit : our bottom line is not the money made but the change created. Whether we are "businesses" or "non-profits" what principles govern our decision-making and who benefits from our actions?

We could use a new language for all the variations ...

What a great question. I had a conversation just last week about the inaccuracy of the term as it applies to my organization.

In general, I think all organizations should operate "for profit," meaning that the operation needs to have a business case behind it and have a diversified funding stream - whether it be internally or externally generated. That should be a basic operational position, not *the* identifying terminology.

More to the point I see our role as a cultural benefit, a social venture. Thanks for the thinking exercise.

I think the public at large does not know what a non-profit business is, so I prefer to say we are an educational organization that benefits the community, but I like the term "socially beneficial" from Amy's post as well.
Barbara Mason

We often use the term "public-benefit" corporations.

An outsider to the non-profit world, I am perhaps better qualified than those within the field to say: If you want the average person to heed the "third leg of the stool”, a name change is desperately needed.

Modern America is a greed-driven sound-bite society. Labels matter more than anything else. Calling something non-profit – unprofitable, essentially -- virtually guarantees that it will be ignored.

"Charity" is a word loaded with the baggage of being unfashionable. "Philanthropy" has four syllables, at least two too many, and complicated Greek roots. "Social Benefit Organizations" or "Socially Responsible Organizations" are apt, but waaaaay too long.

Most Americans have fabulously little understanding of the role of Government, much less that of NGOs. A better name would describe -- simply -- what it is that non-profits DO. Broadly put, I think NGOs help people. So the "helping sector" or something similar might be a good label.

Wish I had more time to think about this, but I have to get back to work and make a profit!

I used to insist on formal use of the term "not-for-profit" because it expresses the fact that organizations are founded not for the purpose of obtaining profit. Yet it's an awkward mouthful. "Nonprofit" conveys almost the same thought, with less fuss.

"Non-profit" is dreadful! Please, let's ban this grammatical distress signal to the historical dustbin. Leave the hyphen out for a cleaner look and sentiment.

And as for all three terms -- not-for-profit, non-profit, and nonprofit -- it is a bizarre practice to name something by what it is not. It's like calling women and girls "nonmen" and "nonboys."

Switching gears to call the nonprofits "social benefit organizations" solves the problem....almost. Some organizations may feel they don't fit this (or another) chosen descriptor. "Voluntary organizations", for example, does little to describe the nonprofit hospital sector.

To the many purposes our organizations lend their energies it does seem challenging to find a name in common, but the short description that immediately came to mind is "common good" organizations.

I heard Tom Suddes speak and I see where he is coming from. Our tax status should not define us. I like PGO - Public Good Organizations.

Peter Drucker would suggest social sector

Jim Collins -- social sector

I agree the sectors, names and definitions are blurring. Makes sense to think about a better term for the organizations involved in human change, rather than defined around a profit bottom line.

I have gotten used to the words 'Non-Profit' as meaning it qualifies for a charitable organization recognized by the state and federal government and others. But I do agree it is non-descript as to the wonderful work we do as 'non-profits'. Which is: we are social or public benefit organizations.
Kathleen Hornstuen

I call our sector the "social sector" and always try to distance it from the "public sector", which in my mind implied government. I know this was a hot topic at the Nonprofit Congress and I think it's been addressed over at the Stanford Social Innovation Review too. Great topic!

Nonprofit fits the big universe, but that's all. Not all nonprofits groups are NGOs - take, for example, the Elks or other fraternal groups. In my mind NGO connotes those nonprofits who provide services that are government-like - health care, etc. I am not sure a dance troupe is an NGO, but they are a nonprofit, just as they are an "arts or cultural organization." Depending on your politics/perspective, not all nonprofits are do-gooders or public good corporations

...the bottom line, I don't worry about the general category title "nonprofit" that's engrained in the law and need not be used much in daily conversation.

I agree, 'non profit' promotes subconscious (or conscious!) negative-thinking by defining us by what we are not.

I prefer 'social profit' and although it speaks to intrinsic value of our orgs, nevertheless even that phrase subliminally confines us to a monetary paradigm.

Common good, social benefit, helping organizations...
How about 'World Changing Clusters'?

As much as I agree with everyone that "non-profit" is misunderstood, it is a generally acknowledged identifer for a broad range of social, educational, artistic, etc. organizations. If fact, the new Non-Profit Association of Oregon (NAO) currently represents over 600 different non-profit orgs across Oregon...and chose that name becuase it is able to "hold" many different non-profits...and can speak broadly on behalf of the sector.

I like to use the term "community benefit" organization which, at least for me, has more of a local impact connotation than "social benefit organization." For most organizations and donors, that local impact is the priority.

But as others have pointed out, one size does not fit all. Having worked in the international development sector for many years, I can attest that the term NGO does have real significance in other parts of the world, where that distinction is critical because of the historical political context and deep mistrust of government.

Having worked with a number of strongly mission-driven commercial (ie, non-not-for-profit) efforts, I hold that "for benefit", "social benefit", "public good", et al. could all qualify as cross-sector distinctions. Some organizations in each sector qualify; some in each do not. (Consider organizations currently deemed "member-benefit nonprofits").

If we're looking specifically for a term to capture the equivalent of US 501(c)3 organizations, I'd suggest one great place to look is at the unusual nature of the transactions there. Unlike social-benefit commercial efforts, you have resources offered from one segment of the public to another, not mediated by individually negotiated mutual-benefit trading. Unlike government spending, the decision to pay is voluntary and highly linked to donors' purpose (even with general purpose donations, by way of choosing the org to give to).

So in looking for nomenclature for the 501(c)3-bees, my mind goes to phrases like "Public-Gifting organizations" or "Public Generosity Organizations" or "Social Gift Organizations" acknowledging their unique role as enabling transactions not hinging on immediate, transitive mutual benefit between trading partners.

This framing not only acknowledges their purpose but also distinguishes them from organizations with different legal structures that share their aims but not their mechanism.

I am not opposed to coming up with a new term or name for not-for-profit but I am quite concerned that the new name not be for-the-worse rather than for-the-better. It would be unfortunate to come up with a name which is confusing to our very generous and desperately needed supporters. Some of the responses here refer to 501 (c) (3) but that category is by no means representative of the nonprofit world and the diversity within that IRS designation itself is quite large. Also it is my belief that NGO is not universally accepted as meaning a not-for-profit Non Governmental Organization. I hear the term used on television by the Wall Street crowd frequently and I am quite convinced they are not referring to not-for-profit.

I will watch with interest to see what the conclusion of this discussion is.

Even though non-profit is not well liked my many of my colleagues, it is a term used for years now by our supporters. Since I have worked primarily in the arts, mostly music, public radio, etc., my organizations have used a variety of terms to describe what services they provide. However, a 501(c)(3) non-profit may have been too widely used for too long for us to discard it. NGO also describes what we are "not." No term comes immediately to mind that would provide a good umbrella term for all of us: 501(c)(3) has served us for a long time.

If I come up with something brilliant, I'll write again.

What's wrong with saying what we are not? Because to me, non-profit is not about “function.” I have not met a single non-profit in my work experience, volunteering or limited consulting, that intentionally says, “At the end of the year we want our agency to balance exactly revenues and expenses.” Non-profits, to be healthy and sustainable, need to have as a clear target to end the year with revenues (ideally unrestricted) in excess of expenses. Without profit non-profits are unstable. So non-profit is an artificial distinction and from a business sense, non-profits and for-profits share the same “functional” goal, which is make enough money to sustain and grow. The difference (and basis of tax exemption) is how non-profits and for-profits distribute their excess revenues and that is about motive rather than function.

Many for profit companies today (including unprofitable ones) are trying to reinvent themselves as green, sustainable, socially responsible, or local, to pull some of the buzz adjectives out of the air. In some cases, such repositioning is warranted and in some cases it is all about marketing. Re-branding is all about trying to convey culture and motive. But there is something genetic in the term for-profit that despite all of the branding and social good the bottom line is redistribution of money from my pocket to the for-profit pocket. With non-profit, the genetic code is about my pocket to a greater good. To me, the term nonprofit is a great tool to communicate an inherent culture and motive and is what distinguishes a non-profit from a for-profit.

I was a member of the initial cohort (1996) of Seattle University's Executive Master's Program for Not-For-Profit Leadership. (Whew!) As such, I am qualified to use the initials, MNPL, after my name. Which I don't. Because no one knows what they mean.

All the logical arguments for using "Not-For-Profit" vs. "nonprofit" aside, I prefer the latter because it is MUCH easier to type.

If we were to adopt a new name for our sector, my vote would be for the mysterious "Third Sector." I conjures. It has an air of intrigue about it, like "Fourth Estate." The wheels of the mind would be thrown into motion: "What are the other three estates?" would be a question worth begging. It would provoke a Wikipedia search. It would make us think. Whether we liked it or not.

This is not brilliant as mentioned in my previous comment; however, soon after I wrote, I was requested to provide our articles of incorporation to a potential funder. The Articles were approved (25 years ago) according to the State's non-profit statutes (don't have it in front of me just now to quote exactly.

Non-profit has been with us forever. We might decide to live with it as an umbrella. And, then describe our own organization according to our mission as we have been doing. If our mission changes, then that part of our identity can change without consideration for all others in our general category.

But the umbrella might best remain 501(c)(3) non-profit.

One of the speakers at last Friday's luncheon program on wealth management (he was a financial advisor)said he uses the term "social profit" with his clients, so I'll add that to the list of suggestions!

Like many of those who have responded, I don't think we can shake the "non-profit" or "nonprofit" (which I also prefer) title--it has simply been used for to long. However, having worked in "the arts," in "education," and in "health care" (all nonprofits), I used those identifying terms more than the term nonprofit.

If changing the overarching term were to become necessary, I would strongly recommend philanthropic organizations since others give to us and we give to the community.

An interesting discussion. I don't really mind when we are saying that we are not something negative. So nonprofit suits me fine, but only if we think in financial terms. There are so many other ways to profit from something, than via money. An interesting conundrum, and one found in other spheres too. As a writer I also occasionally write nonfiction. Imagine that, the made up stories get a term of their own (fiction) and writing about the truth gets classified as, "not made up."

I think that people outside the nonprofit world simply translate "nonprofit" to "do-good for no money." That's not a bad thing for people to think, so maybe we shouldn't change the term.

What is important is that the Board and staff of nonprofits understand that "non-profit" does not mean that we can't or shouldn't make a profit. In fact, we need to make a profit to stay in business.

When talking to board members about this, I simply write on the flip chart, "non-profit organization" and then, while asking, "if you don't make a profit, what have you got?" I cross out the word "profit", and you end up with "non-organization."

So I'd vote for not worrying about the terminology, worry about the profit!

There's a similar discussion taking place in the American Association of Grant Professionals. Many people feel that the term Grantwriter leads people to think that the main skill is writing, which is generally acknowledged to be maybe only 25% of what's involved in developing a good grant proposal. The names Grant Professional and Grant Developer are suggested.

What I find is that if I tell people outside the field I'm a grantwriter or a grantwriting consultant, they know what I mean and we can move on to what's really involved. If I say I'm a grant developer it's just confusing. I think nonprofit is similar, the word is so embedded in the language now that, while it's not perfect, the substitutes just muddy the water.

Let's remember that there are many more types of organizations listed in Internal Revenue Code Section 501 than those listed in 501 (c)(3). Why not include them in the broadly defined nonprofit sector? Or at least the 'federally (pretty much) tax-exempt sector'?

Maybe the working title depends on why we are asking the question. Are we concerned about how this sector (of the economy? of the society? of something else?) operates? To whom it is beholden? It's mission-orientation? Something else?

Profits for a nonprofit organization? (Charlie April 17). Perhaps I do not understand.

After reading through the many comments I think it would be a mistake to change the name. I vote for nonprofit.

Rich: It's perfectly OK for non-profits to make a profit. The difference betweeen a nonprofit and for-profit corp is that a for-profit corp. gets to distribute the profits to shareholders, while a nonprofit has to plow the profits back into the business (or keep the profits on the books, as "net assets," so that in years when you don't make a profit you can still make payroll and stay in business).