Entropy in the Animal Welfare Universe
February 8, 2010 6:11 AM Subscribe
Only a few months after joining a local animal welfare group, I had a front-row seat in the bitter ending of the organization and it's becoming clear that sometime soon there will be two new organizations in its place as all the players pick sides and band together. Watching this play out made me curious about the number of animal welfare/shelter/education groups in my community and, with daily reading and searching, I seem to discover new little groups every couple of days. I'm sure this kind of thing is common all over the world and I bet it is not limited to the animal welfare folks. Nevertheless, I am unable to explain the large number of organizations, all with the same goals, competing for all kinds of resources.
Staying focused just on animal welfare/shelter groups, what are the big dividing lines that will cause groups to splinter or cause well-organized and similar groups to sincerely hate each other? I can see that the kill/no-kill shelter line would divide groups and I can see (to some degree) the need for species-specific groups. But beyond that, why on earth would very similar groups not merge together to share things such as board members, facilities, web sites, fund-raising, etc? There are limited resources even in good times and even in large cities the number of people who know how to effectively and efficiently govern such non-profits is very limited. What I find in my area are groups that solicit funding using pathetic web sites, have poor or no facilities, have board members that mean well but do not know much about non-profits or animal welfare legal issues, have poor record-keeping methods that would prevent any serious grant applications, and compete for free damaged bags of dog food at local pet stores.
Does anyone have any inspirational stories of drawing groups together or is this balkanization of animal welfare groups just how things go?
Staying focused just on animal welfare/shelter groups, what are the big dividing lines that will cause groups to splinter or cause well-organized and similar groups to sincerely hate each other? I can see that the kill/no-kill shelter line would divide groups and I can see (to some degree) the need for species-specific groups. But beyond that, why on earth would very similar groups not merge together to share things such as board members, facilities, web sites, fund-raising, etc? There are limited resources even in good times and even in large cities the number of people who know how to effectively and efficiently govern such non-profits is very limited. What I find in my area are groups that solicit funding using pathetic web sites, have poor or no facilities, have board members that mean well but do not know much about non-profits or animal welfare legal issues, have poor record-keeping methods that would prevent any serious grant applications, and compete for free damaged bags of dog food at local pet stores.
Does anyone have any inspirational stories of drawing groups together or is this balkanization of animal welfare groups just how things go?
These are petty dictatorships and there's only room for one dictator and her/his trusted cabinet members (until a cabinet member has an idea that dictator won't take seriously, that is, and splinters). The reason you see it SO much in these little animal rescue groups is that there's no limit on how many there can be. The same political crap goes on in PTA groups and city government, for example, but you can't just go start a new city council.
It's about power. It's actually really hard to find volunteers who just want to show up and be given work to do, do it, and go home. Everybody's got a great idea or at least a better one, and wants to be recognized for it. And in most areas, there's a city service to fall back on even if every little local group implodes. With animals, too, there's a lot of leeway to do things the way you want without running afoul of the law, in ways you could not get away with if the mission revolved around children, the homeless, or other humans.
Years ago, a housemate and I did a lot of fostering and rehabilitation, but would not align with any one group because of the high level of political drama and seriously not stable people who seemed to be drawn to this kind of work. We were just a phone number that got passed around because we'd help, and that was as far as we were willing to go. The only time I saw groups come together - and only temporarily - was when somebody got raided or lost their home and the animals had to be redistributed.
posted by Lyn Never at 6:35 AM on February 8, 2010 [6 favorites]
It's about power. It's actually really hard to find volunteers who just want to show up and be given work to do, do it, and go home. Everybody's got a great idea or at least a better one, and wants to be recognized for it. And in most areas, there's a city service to fall back on even if every little local group implodes. With animals, too, there's a lot of leeway to do things the way you want without running afoul of the law, in ways you could not get away with if the mission revolved around children, the homeless, or other humans.
Years ago, a housemate and I did a lot of fostering and rehabilitation, but would not align with any one group because of the high level of political drama and seriously not stable people who seemed to be drawn to this kind of work. We were just a phone number that got passed around because we'd help, and that was as far as we were willing to go. The only time I saw groups come together - and only temporarily - was when somebody got raided or lost their home and the animals had to be redistributed.
posted by Lyn Never at 6:35 AM on February 8, 2010 [6 favorites]
I don't know about animal welfare, but here are some issues that have caused problems in another non-profit field:
- Whether to use public grant funding or solicit private income from providing services.
- What to do when funding disappears.
- Whether to use a group formed with one aim to promote the goals of another group with different aims.
- Managing volunteers: what kind of expectations you can have of volunteers, what constitutes unprofessional behaviour, when you can "fire" a volunteer, how to cope with the unpredictability of people who have no financial incentive and many other commitments.
- How much to pay people involved. Unpaid volunteers get jealous of salary and/or expenses paid to some but not others.
- People wanting a "lead" role, or more say in decisions, or to use the team's resources to work on "pet" projects.
- How open to be about the company's actions and decisions.
Seems to me that many people don't like working for someone else: they need a significant reward to want to do that at all, either in terms of money or of enjoyment in their work.
posted by emilyw at 6:42 AM on February 8, 2010
- Whether to use public grant funding or solicit private income from providing services.
- What to do when funding disappears.
- Whether to use a group formed with one aim to promote the goals of another group with different aims.
- Managing volunteers: what kind of expectations you can have of volunteers, what constitutes unprofessional behaviour, when you can "fire" a volunteer, how to cope with the unpredictability of people who have no financial incentive and many other commitments.
- How much to pay people involved. Unpaid volunteers get jealous of salary and/or expenses paid to some but not others.
- People wanting a "lead" role, or more say in decisions, or to use the team's resources to work on "pet" projects.
- How open to be about the company's actions and decisions.
Seems to me that many people don't like working for someone else: they need a significant reward to want to do that at all, either in terms of money or of enjoyment in their work.
posted by emilyw at 6:42 AM on February 8, 2010
I think it's a consequence of how most of these groups begin: one motivated individual starts the group, but then other strong personalities come on board, and the disputes become personal. Animal rescue is also such an emotional issue that people tend to get angry if they feel another person is not working towards the best interests of the animals as they see it.
My own personal experience in rescue is that it is often about making hard choices: should we spend our limited resources saving animal X, or saving animal Y? Is it better to treat one ill animal, or spend that money on a less expensive treatment for 15 animals? Given that animal rescue groups are run by volunteers who do it because they care about animals, these decisions are often the cause of tension and splits, because of the emotional involvement that the volunteers have with the animals.
It is probably the case that the groups you deride as having "pathetic web sites, have poor or no facilities" are run purely on a volunteer basis by a small group of people who have little or no experience in these areas: my experience of animal rescue is that a lot of the people involved are older, retired people with limited tech knowledge. They are more focused on helping the animals than learning PHP.
I would also suggest that you consider the nature of the never-ending battle: as soon as a group gets established, they will be overwhelmed with animals that need help, with people who have or want to give up their animals, who have found lost animals, etc. Every year, most cat rescue groups are overwhelmed with kittens from people who don't get their animals fixed. Even those groups that offer free spay/neuters. Given this, do you expect them to turn their backs on these animals? Facilities are also insanely expensive: do you really expect a small group to be able to afford to buy facilities and run them?
posted by baggers at 6:47 AM on February 8, 2010
My own personal experience in rescue is that it is often about making hard choices: should we spend our limited resources saving animal X, or saving animal Y? Is it better to treat one ill animal, or spend that money on a less expensive treatment for 15 animals? Given that animal rescue groups are run by volunteers who do it because they care about animals, these decisions are often the cause of tension and splits, because of the emotional involvement that the volunteers have with the animals.
It is probably the case that the groups you deride as having "pathetic web sites, have poor or no facilities" are run purely on a volunteer basis by a small group of people who have little or no experience in these areas: my experience of animal rescue is that a lot of the people involved are older, retired people with limited tech knowledge. They are more focused on helping the animals than learning PHP.
I would also suggest that you consider the nature of the never-ending battle: as soon as a group gets established, they will be overwhelmed with animals that need help, with people who have or want to give up their animals, who have found lost animals, etc. Every year, most cat rescue groups are overwhelmed with kittens from people who don't get their animals fixed. Even those groups that offer free spay/neuters. Given this, do you expect them to turn their backs on these animals? Facilities are also insanely expensive: do you really expect a small group to be able to afford to buy facilities and run them?
posted by baggers at 6:47 AM on February 8, 2010
Zealots always focus on fine points of division, not on common points of unity.
Libertarians will agree on 19 out of 20 platform planks, and then engage in vituperative internecine warfare over the 20th. The Old Left, and especially the CPUSA, continually fractured, purged, denounced, and non-person'd. Less dramatically, the NAACP, CORE, SNCC, and the SCLC and the Panthers all had very different ideas of tactics. The Democratic Party is famous for "circular firing squads". The Teabaggers in the Republican Party want a purity test Saint Reagan himself could not have passed. This is essentially the history of the many many schisms that in sum form Protestantism.
If you see arguing rather than action, you're dealing with zealots, or with cults of personality where the the leader prefers being a big fish in his small pond of faithful admirers to growing the movement.
posted by orthogonality at 6:50 AM on February 8, 2010 [2 favorites]
Libertarians will agree on 19 out of 20 platform planks, and then engage in vituperative internecine warfare over the 20th. The Old Left, and especially the CPUSA, continually fractured, purged, denounced, and non-person'd. Less dramatically, the NAACP, CORE, SNCC, and the SCLC and the Panthers all had very different ideas of tactics. The Democratic Party is famous for "circular firing squads". The Teabaggers in the Republican Party want a purity test Saint Reagan himself could not have passed. This is essentially the history of the many many schisms that in sum form Protestantism.
If you see arguing rather than action, you're dealing with zealots, or with cults of personality where the the leader prefers being a big fish in his small pond of faithful admirers to growing the movement.
posted by orthogonality at 6:50 AM on February 8, 2010 [2 favorites]
Speaking from extensive experience (10,000+ volunteer hours over 15+ years for various nonprofit and political organizations), I've noticed that once the profit/pay motive is gone, people will fight over the pettiest shit.
Also, there's a tendency to assume that anyone who shares your pet cause must be a good person. Then when you find out they're not, the sense of disappointment and betrayal is so much worse.
posted by Jacqueline at 7:23 AM on February 8, 2010 [4 favorites]
Also, there's a tendency to assume that anyone who shares your pet cause must be a good person. Then when you find out they're not, the sense of disappointment and betrayal is so much worse.
posted by Jacqueline at 7:23 AM on February 8, 2010 [4 favorites]
Nonprofits in general seem to have a higher-than-average level of drama, but animal welfare organizations in particular seem to attract a lot of people who are perhaps working out their own emotional issues regarding abuse, abandonment, neglect, etc. I don't mean that in a disparaging way; I think part of the wonder of animals is that they can help us with these issues where other humans can't, but it's not necessarily the best thing for the efficient running of an organization if its reason for being is a magnet for the emotionally unstable.
posted by HotToddy at 7:24 AM on February 8, 2010 [2 favorites]
posted by HotToddy at 7:24 AM on February 8, 2010 [2 favorites]
I suspect the term you're looking for is Founder's Syndrome. Very, very common in non-profits.
posted by mynameisluka at 7:45 AM on February 8, 2010
posted by mynameisluka at 7:45 AM on February 8, 2010
This is how animal welfare seems to work, unfortunately. There are a few factors at play here. A huge one is the bad economy. Even well-funded, longstanding organizations can implode when money gets short. It's often not a matter of "well, we're out of money, we've gotta close up." It's usually more a case of "Whoa, the bank balance is low!" and then there's a chaotic chain reaction from there. Steps, often controversial, are taken to save money. Desperate pleas for money are made to the donor base and the community at large. Some of the larger donors are dismayed at the steps taken in the name of saving money and quit giving. Volunteers don't like the direction the organization is going and they leave. Before you know it there's a smoking crater where an animal welfare organization once stood. (Or, in some cases, a zombie organization that bears little resemblance to what it was before.)
Next there is the "can't save 'em all" factor. One thing you have to teach yourself when you're working in animal rescue is that you can't save all of them. It's counter to what you might think, since people get into this to save the world. It's also difficult because it's tough to look at an animal and think "I'm sorry, I'm just not able to help." People often don't understand this when they get into rescuing animals. I've seen a ton a rescue startups, and if there is one thing they all have in common, it's that they're full almost immediately. A sad truth is that there are always going to be more animals than homes. Factor in the bad economy again, and now you've got the aforementioned issue of organizations fighting over damaged bags of dog food and vying for the same dollars as everyone else. Only in this case, with finances being tough everywhere, those dollars don't exist.
In many cases these rescue groups that started up are the splinters that have broken off of other groups. It's a cycle that will continue as competing philosophies take their natural courses. Oftentimes it simply comes down to dollars. It's an idealistic undertaking that requires a break from said ideals when the money gets short. When people break away on ideological grounds, and then go out on their own, they learn first hand what happens when there's no money. These dynamics and personality clashes also are what prevents these organizations from banding together. Sometimes they will join up; I've seen it happen a couple of times. But the grudges, conflicts, and competition usually keep them apart.
posted by azpenguin at 7:48 AM on February 8, 2010 [3 favorites]
Next there is the "can't save 'em all" factor. One thing you have to teach yourself when you're working in animal rescue is that you can't save all of them. It's counter to what you might think, since people get into this to save the world. It's also difficult because it's tough to look at an animal and think "I'm sorry, I'm just not able to help." People often don't understand this when they get into rescuing animals. I've seen a ton a rescue startups, and if there is one thing they all have in common, it's that they're full almost immediately. A sad truth is that there are always going to be more animals than homes. Factor in the bad economy again, and now you've got the aforementioned issue of organizations fighting over damaged bags of dog food and vying for the same dollars as everyone else. Only in this case, with finances being tough everywhere, those dollars don't exist.
In many cases these rescue groups that started up are the splinters that have broken off of other groups. It's a cycle that will continue as competing philosophies take their natural courses. Oftentimes it simply comes down to dollars. It's an idealistic undertaking that requires a break from said ideals when the money gets short. When people break away on ideological grounds, and then go out on their own, they learn first hand what happens when there's no money. These dynamics and personality clashes also are what prevents these organizations from banding together. Sometimes they will join up; I've seen it happen a couple of times. But the grudges, conflicts, and competition usually keep them apart.
posted by azpenguin at 7:48 AM on February 8, 2010 [3 favorites]
Many savvy nonprofits are highly aware of the need to not duplicate efoorts, to not compete for resources and funding, to find their own niche, and to collaborate on grant proposals. Are there any of those nearby?
posted by salvia at 8:03 AM on February 8, 2010
posted by salvia at 8:03 AM on February 8, 2010
Is a 100-person animal shelter more efficient than 100 1-person animal shelters?
I would guess there are some economies of scale -- bulk food purchasing, large facilities, in-house vet services -- but there are also some benefits to remaining small, such as low overhead and borrowing space from private homes.
Just a theory.
posted by miyabo at 8:25 AM on February 8, 2010
I would guess there are some economies of scale -- bulk food purchasing, large facilities, in-house vet services -- but there are also some benefits to remaining small, such as low overhead and borrowing space from private homes.
Just a theory.
posted by miyabo at 8:25 AM on February 8, 2010
Unfortunately, ideologically based groups tend to attract large numbers of people whose primary interest is to display how passionate they are, or to obtain and excercise power. This leads to major splintering, and is a total bummer. And Jacqueline hit on something really important - everyone walks into these sorts of groups thinking "if you think the same way as me, then you must be a good person" and, well, that's just ridiculous.
So if you're one of the few in that group who is more interested in actually acheiving results rather than calling the shots, or showing how angry/empathetic you are, then you may get frustrated. I hope you stick with it though, and hope that you can find a group that isn't dominated by the petty power struggles and nit-picking shit. Don't let them drag you down!
posted by molecicco at 8:38 AM on February 8, 2010 [1 favorite]
So if you're one of the few in that group who is more interested in actually acheiving results rather than calling the shots, or showing how angry/empathetic you are, then you may get frustrated. I hope you stick with it though, and hope that you can find a group that isn't dominated by the petty power struggles and nit-picking shit. Don't let them drag you down!
posted by molecicco at 8:38 AM on February 8, 2010 [1 favorite]
People hurt other people's feelings, accidentally or because one day they're just too tired to be careful, and they start seeing each other as seriously flawed. Then, it's difficult to justify spending your limited, precious free time working with people you see as stupid, mean, or just impossible to communicate with.
posted by amtho at 8:39 AM on February 8, 2010
posted by amtho at 8:39 AM on February 8, 2010
I have not read through all the answers, so forgive me if a bit of this is redundant. The most important thing is that this phenomenon is not at all idiosyncratic of the animal welfare movement. Apologies if this comes out a bit of a polemic, but I think it's relevant.
What you are describing is the common condition, the wretched condition, of NPOs in this country. NPOs are notoriously uncompromising, are led by mission-driven, stubborn, bleeding heart liberals on a do gooder rampages, and often let what they believe to be the integrity of their org supercede the positive impact they could be having. I say all of this as a bleeding heart NPO employee myself.
It isn't sustainable. In fact, since the econ crises, more and more major foundations are limiting their funding to orgs which promise to work together or consolidate with other orgs with similar goals. Arts orgs tend to be a particularly ripe example. For instance, in the city where I live, there are two orgs dedicated to performing new chamber music. They refuse to work together over petty aesthetic/ideological differences. But this town does not have the resources available to support two such orgs, and eventually one - or more likely both - will die.
As was said upthread, it's about power. This sort of fracturing is antithetical to what these orgs are trying to accomplish. There's a common thing called Founder's Syndrome, where the founder of an org is so tied up in his or her particular vision of the org that they cripple it in such a way as to make it unable to function with other orgs or under different leadership.
But beyond that, why on earth would very similar groups not merge together to share things such as board members, facilities, web sites, fund-raising, etc?
Yep, that pretty much sums it up. Try to be the voice of reason - try to say exactly this loud enough that some people pay attention. If you don't have a job at stake, be as vocal as you can be about the ways in which this sort of petty splitting up is actually and severely hurting and inhibiting all of these groups efforts to improve the lives of animals.
posted by Lutoslawski at 9:50 AM on February 8, 2010 [2 favorites]
What you are describing is the common condition, the wretched condition, of NPOs in this country. NPOs are notoriously uncompromising, are led by mission-driven, stubborn, bleeding heart liberals on a do gooder rampages, and often let what they believe to be the integrity of their org supercede the positive impact they could be having. I say all of this as a bleeding heart NPO employee myself.
It isn't sustainable. In fact, since the econ crises, more and more major foundations are limiting their funding to orgs which promise to work together or consolidate with other orgs with similar goals. Arts orgs tend to be a particularly ripe example. For instance, in the city where I live, there are two orgs dedicated to performing new chamber music. They refuse to work together over petty aesthetic/ideological differences. But this town does not have the resources available to support two such orgs, and eventually one - or more likely both - will die.
As was said upthread, it's about power. This sort of fracturing is antithetical to what these orgs are trying to accomplish. There's a common thing called Founder's Syndrome, where the founder of an org is so tied up in his or her particular vision of the org that they cripple it in such a way as to make it unable to function with other orgs or under different leadership.
But beyond that, why on earth would very similar groups not merge together to share things such as board members, facilities, web sites, fund-raising, etc?
Yep, that pretty much sums it up. Try to be the voice of reason - try to say exactly this loud enough that some people pay attention. If you don't have a job at stake, be as vocal as you can be about the ways in which this sort of petty splitting up is actually and severely hurting and inhibiting all of these groups efforts to improve the lives of animals.
posted by Lutoslawski at 9:50 AM on February 8, 2010 [2 favorites]
It could be that it would make sense for two organisations to merge, but they don't like the merging process itself. Namely, the part where you get rid of redundant managers, procedures, and facilities.
I mean, it's pretty difficult for a manager to say "yeah, basically what I've been doing up until now has been an inefficient waste of my effort, we should close down and everyone go volunteer at Place B" - particularly when the alternative is "let's not change things right now".
posted by Mike1024 at 10:10 AM on February 8, 2010
I mean, it's pretty difficult for a manager to say "yeah, basically what I've been doing up until now has been an inefficient waste of my effort, we should close down and everyone go volunteer at Place B" - particularly when the alternative is "let's not change things right now".
posted by Mike1024 at 10:10 AM on February 8, 2010
It's not just animal welfare groups. My girlfriend joined a local "peace & justice" organization, their meetings usually ended in unfinished arguments over how *exactly* to word their angry letters to local government officials about the Iraq war.
She finally decided to bow out after some kind of ridiculous power struggle between opposing "leaders", immediately after she resigned she got a flurry of phone calls / emails from people on both sides, begging her to stick around and choose sides. It was really straight out of jr. high school.
posted by the bricabrac man at 10:25 AM on February 8, 2010
She finally decided to bow out after some kind of ridiculous power struggle between opposing "leaders", immediately after she resigned she got a flurry of phone calls / emails from people on both sides, begging her to stick around and choose sides. It was really straight out of jr. high school.
posted by the bricabrac man at 10:25 AM on February 8, 2010
The dog rescue group that I volunteer with is about to break up for a few reasons:
1. difference in ideals: some members believe that every dog can and should be saved while others believe that dangerous and aggressive dogs are better put down than the group taking on the liability of placing aggressive dogs in possibly litigious homes.
2. finance: the creator of our group has spent a lot of her own personal money to keep the organization running for more than a decade. She has decided that this is no longer financially realistic for her, and no other members have come forward to shoulder that burden.
posted by rinosaur at 10:56 AM on February 8, 2010
1. difference in ideals: some members believe that every dog can and should be saved while others believe that dangerous and aggressive dogs are better put down than the group taking on the liability of placing aggressive dogs in possibly litigious homes.
2. finance: the creator of our group has spent a lot of her own personal money to keep the organization running for more than a decade. She has decided that this is no longer financially realistic for her, and no other members have come forward to shoulder that burden.
posted by rinosaur at 10:56 AM on February 8, 2010
Nthing that this is not limited to specific kinds of groups - it happens in many of the gaming social circles I travel in. Anyone who has played an MMO can tell you about "guild drama" which is very similar - it's about vision, recognition, power struggles, and personalities. Even though the goals are different - rescuing animals vs. playing a game - the players are still human beings that have the same foibles. (I'll go so far to say I'm not above / immune to them in my own circles - I'm human, too.)
posted by GJSchaller at 12:05 PM on February 8, 2010
posted by GJSchaller at 12:05 PM on February 8, 2010
This couldn’t possibly be a reference to the Toronto Humane Society, could it?
posted by joeclark at 1:28 PM on February 8, 2010
posted by joeclark at 1:28 PM on February 8, 2010
NPOs are notoriously uncompromising, are led by mission-driven, stubborn, bleeding heart liberals on a do gooder rampages, and often let what they believe to be the integrity of their org supercede the positive impact they could be having. I say all of this as a bleeding heart NPO employee myself.
Lutoslawski - this crap happens with my moms god-n-guns conservative groups, too. And churches. They're on a mission from God and no one should doubt them.
The non-profit arts are often lousy with this BS.
posted by Lesser Shrew at 7:21 PM on February 8, 2010
Lutoslawski - this crap happens with my moms god-n-guns conservative groups, too. And churches. They're on a mission from God and no one should doubt them.
The non-profit arts are often lousy with this BS.
posted by Lesser Shrew at 7:21 PM on February 8, 2010
Don't believe generalities about all nonprofits. They're thrown around on this site all the time. There are well-run nonprofits and poorly-run nonprofits.
posted by salvia at 10:05 PM on February 8, 2010
posted by salvia at 10:05 PM on February 8, 2010
« Older Turned down for a promotion - what do I do now? | Single mother to be, the Bible and sperm Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
/bitterness.
posted by OLechat at 6:30 AM on February 8, 2010 [4 favorites]