I would like to share a few thoughts on the provocative subject that there might be too many associations.

First: by sheer numbers, there are an enormous number of nonprofit organizations.

Second: there is obviously too much duplication and wasted effort within these numbers

Third: the pressures which will likely force consolidation among associations.

Fourth: the difficulties of merging associations.

Fifth: outside help for mergers and critical evaluations.

According to the Urban Institute, there are about 75,000 (c) 6 associations and more than a million (c) 3s. The number of (c) 3s has grown by more than 50 percent in the last ten years. I realize the (c) 3 number includes an awful lot of groups we don’t normally include in the sphere of associations, i.e., charities and foundations. At least half that 1,000,000 number, however, probably fall into our definition of associations.

You have to admit that is an awful lot of tax-exempt organizations. That should raise a red flag all by itself. There are more than 35,00 different organizations of war veterans alone.

In the past, the IRS has made an occasional foray into clamping down on the tax exempt non profits. These efforts have not been all that aggressive outside of the law which created the Unrelated Business Income Tax (UBIT).

In this current climate, don’t be surprised to see more action on the part of the IRS to question the validity as well as the purpose and activities of nonprofits. The game is on to increase tax revenues.

Our current economic situation is already putting strong pressure on many associations and may well be a clarion call for associations to carefully examine the possibility of gaining more stability by considering consolidation with one or more other organizations. Survival of many associations may well depend on pursuing this course of action.

In many industries or professions there are certainly many organizations that do not need to operate independently to serve essentially the same membership. Amalgamation would serve the industry far better.

In the reality of a struggling economy there are only so many dollars companies, as well as individuals, will be willing to continue committing to join and participate in associations and their functions. It is almost impossible to find any group who have increased membership or convention attendance this year.

It is not likely these forces will change very soon. Consolidation, amalgamation or merger may be heresy to a lot of people. If you are not considering it, some of your members may be. Doing it, of course, is not easy and has many problems and pitfalls.

I have personally been involved with several attempts to merge associations. Each one was a struggle and left a lot of broken noses and hurt egos along the way. You have to be careful in considering joining forces whether in fact it is a merger or an absorption. The cultures of each group is a vital consideration. The important decision point is whether you can still accomplish your goals and serve your members.

My first introduction to an attempt to merge two groups was really absorption. Of course, in the initial proposal it was not framed that way. One group was essentially an industry social organization. The other was a more program-oriented operation which had difficulty having any social functions because of the other group.

This first attempt failed mainly because the ego of the past presidents said “I’ll be past president of a group that no longer exists”.

A few years later a second attempt finally succeeded. It happened this time because the large industry leaders who were the main support of both groups saw the wisdom of the combination and openly encouraged their people to support it. The results were a definite benefit in creating a more cohesive industry organization.

What do you think?

Posted in Art Schwartz: Views & Opinions | Comments are off for this post