Throughout the course of our 
Almost everything we've read this semester, including this week's piece by Paul Connolly and Laura Klein, "Getting Back in Shape: Guidelines for Improving the Fitness of Established Nonprofit Organizations" acknowledges the problems in the cultural sector. Institutions are perpetually fighting the uphill battle to maintain their funding. As Connolly and Klein note, even when things are going well, stagnation can occur. In my opinion, every critique we've read leads me to the conclusion that nonprofits need to reject the idea that growth = success and embrace the necessity of downsizing.
Connolly and Klein provide a list of common problems in nonprofits, including outdated programming, too much bureaucracy, and chronic budget deficits. For almost all of their stated issues, the pair argue for restructuring. Only for the deficit problem do they actually acknowledge a need for dropping "nonessential services," not just altering them. While I think that restructuring is a crucial solution for many of the problems the piece lists, I view restructuring as part of a larger downsizing effort.
Historical institutions should follow the model of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania and assess what they do well to actually serve their target population(s). Before constructing new dynamic programming, which Connolly and Klein state as a necessary effort for many stagnant institutions, they need to cut out old programming, and possibly the staff or even the mission statement that is dedicated to that outdated, ineffective programming. Before an institution can truly restructure, it needs to trim its fat. Yet, my grand plan for downsizing is maybe too ambitious because it directly contradicts the growth culture, which is fueled by the larger curse of capitalism.
Bigger is not necessarily better, yet nonprofits exist in a society that believes the opposite. This means that, even when it wasn't necessary, even when it wasn't sustainable, many of our historical institutions have grown. And now they're paying the price.
In the for profit world, shrinking is often seen as a way to maximize profits. It is cruel and greedy, removing staff and services that actually do assist the consumer experience for the sake of making more money. Or, shrinking is the first sign of a failing business. I understand why people are wary. Yet, in nonprofits, downsizing can be a necessary and effective way to better serve the mission. It's not about making more money, it's about being of better service to the public.
In reality, I want historical institutions to have more funding to create new, dynamic programs. I want them to grow as much as they please to best serve their communities. But we do not live in an economy that allows for that. As long as funding for these institutions are so dependent on finite grants and donors, there isn't the stability necessary to count on long term growth. Thus, the goal cannot be growth. Institutions need to shrink to counteract the unnecessary bloating that occurred in the growth culture.
I know it's a hard sell, but I feel passionately about this. I hope you're able to see some of my logic within my ramblings.
Source: Paul Connelly and Laura Klein, Getting Back in Shape: Guidelines for Improving the Fitness of Established Nonprofit Organizations (The Conservation Company, 1999), 8 pp.
100% of the SBD rewards from this #explore1918 post will support the Philadelphia History Initiative
