Relying heavily on contractors can cut attendance by 27% for museums, theaters and other arts nonprofits – new research

"Nonprofits' Quest for Efficiency Hints at Hidden Costs: Relying on Contractors May Hurt Attendance and Finances"

A growing trend among nonprofits - cutting costs by hiring contractors, consultants, and temporary staff instead of full-time employees. While this approach may seem like a cost-effective way to navigate rising expenses, new research suggests that it can have unintended consequences.

According to data collected from 2008-2018 on 7,838 museums, theaters, community arts centers, and other arts nonprofits across the US, flexible labor arrangements can lead to lower attendance rates. The study found that organizations relying entirely on contractors had an average attendance drop of 27% compared to those employing permanent staff members.

However, this effect was not uniform across all roles. When contractors were hired for administrative tasks like IT or fundraising, attendance remained largely unaffected. But when they took over core activities such as program delivery, the impact on attendance became more pronounced.

Researchers argue that nonprofits' reliance on flexible labor arrangements can lead to a loss of institutional knowledge and continuity. Long-term employees are crucial in building trust with communities and partners, but temporary staff members may not stick around long enough to develop these relationships. This can result in compromised program quality and eroded trust.

In terms of financial performance, the study found that while flexible labor may provide short-term relief from cash flow pressures, it does not improve long-term financial health. Instead, nonprofits risk sacrificing their core strengths - trust, continuity, and community relationships - for the sake of cost-cutting.

The researchers emphasize that nonprofits face unique challenges in generating value through non-monetary means, such as trust and community connections. While flexibility is important in the private sector, it may not be as beneficial for nonprofits, which require a different approach to achieve success.

However, there are still many questions unanswered. The advantages and disadvantages of flexible labor arrangements may vary depending on the type of nonprofit, its specific needs, and other variables that were not fully explored in this study. Further research is needed to understand these nuances and develop strategies that balance efficiency with the unique demands of the nonprofit sector.

I feel you, nonprofits are trying so hard to stay afloat but it's like they're cutting off their own lifeline. I get it about needing to cut costs, but this flexible labor thing can have some serious consequences Like, what if they need that long-term stability and trust with the community? It's not just about attendance numbers, it's about building relationships and making a real difference And yeah, it's all well and good for the admin tasks like IT or fundraising, but when it comes to core activities, it's a different story More research needs to be done to figure out what works best for these organizations, 'cause they're already doing so much with so little

I'm seeing a lot of nonprofits cutting corners to save cash . Newsflash: being cost-effective doesn't always mean being effective . I've been thinking, what's the real value in having those contractors? Is it just about the Benjamins, or is there something more at play? It's easy to lose sight of what matters most when we're too focused on saving a buck.

I think this says something about our society's obsession with efficiency and productivity. We're so used to getting things done fast and cheap that we forget about the importance of building relationships, trust, and community . Nonprofits are supposed to be about serving people, not just cutting costs.

It's also got me thinking about what it means to have a "core strength" in a nonprofit organization . Is it just about having a lot of money or a fancy logo? Or is it about building connections with the community and delivering programs that make a real difference? I think we need to be careful not to sacrifice our values for the sake of saving a buck .

I gotta think about this... nonprofits trying to save a buck by hiring temps is like trying to build a house on quicksand it might look stable at first but eventually, you'll sink deeper into debt and lose sight of what's truly important - that trust with the community, you know? It's not just about getting a cheaper option, it's about preserving the relationships and the knowledge that takes years to build. I mean, think about all those long-term employees who've seen things through thick and thin... they're like the glue that holds everything together

The pursuit of efficiency can lead us down a rabbit hole where we forget about what's truly important . Nonprofits, like any organization, are driven by a desire to make a difference in the world. But when they sacrifice their long-term relationships and core strengths for the sake of cost-cutting, it's like trading a beautiful sunset for a fleeting moment of financial relief .

It's interesting that flexible labor arrangements don't seem to affect attendance when contractors are hired for administrative tasks, but have a significant impact when they're involved in core activities. It's almost as if nonprofits are trying to outsource their humanity, leaving behind the very qualities that make them unique and valuable .

Ultimately, this trend highlights our need to rethink what we mean by "efficiency" and whether it's truly aligned with our values and goals. Are we just looking for ways to cut costs, or are we trying to create a more sustainable and equitable future? The answer lies somewhere in between

idk why nonprofits would wanna cut costs like this, they should focus on buildin long-term relationships with their communities instead of just tryin to save a buck . it's like when you're tryin to get a new phone, but instead of buying the latest model, you just buy a used one that's gonna break sooner or later. nonprofits need to find ways to make money beyond just donations, and flexible labor arrangements ain't gonna cut it . and what about all the people who lose their jobs cuz they're contract workers? that's some serious unintended consequence right there

I'm not sure I agree with nonprofits cutting costs by hiring contractors . I mean, sure, it's nice to have some flexibility in labor arrangements and all that, but when you're trying to build trust with your community and deliver programs, don't you need people who are gonna stick around for the long haul? It feels like these organizations are sacrificing too much of their core identity just to save a buck . And what about all those temporary staff members? Are they really just gonna leave once the contract is up? I'd love to see some more research on this, 'cause it seems like nonprofits need a different approach than just trying to be more efficient .

I'm not convinced by this study's findings... 27% drop in attendance seems like a lot, especially if it only applies to core activities. What's the sample size for contractors vs full-time employees? Is it fair to compare these two groups when they're working on different projects?

Also, how do we know that long-term employees are building trust with communities and partners, and what exactly does "institutional knowledge" mean in this context? The study mentions it like it's a solid thing, but isn't it just a fancy way of saying "people who have been doing the job for a while"?

And don't get me wrong, I think cost-cutting is important, but can we really say that flexible labor arrangements are the culprit here? What about other factors, like changes in community interests or market trends?

More research is definitely needed, but let's not jump to conclusions just yet.

Ugh, I'm like totally nostalgic for the good old days when nonprofits actually had employees who cared about their causes ... I mean, don't get me wrong, flexibility is cool and all, but this trend of relying on contractors just feels so... impersonal, you know? Like, where's the connection with the community if nobody's around to build those relationships?

And yeah, the study makes sense - without long-term employees, there's just not that same level of trust and continuity. It's like trying to run a museum without anyone who actually knows how to do it ... I get it, cost-cutting is important, but at what cost? The nonprofit sector needs to find a better balance between efficiency and heart .

I'm also kinda surprised they didn't explore the impact on diversity and representation with flexible labor arrangements... like, don't temporary staff members just end up getting shuffled around to different roles without anyone really understanding their qualifications or experiences?

Anyway, I guess what I'm saying is that nonprofits need to take a step back and think about what's really important: making a difference in the community, not just cutting costs .

I'm still rethinking what I said about nonprofits going green... yeah, it's a good thing they're trying to cut costs, but like, have you seen how some of those contractors are just freelancers on retainer? It's all well and good that attendance drops when they take over core activities, but what about the quality of work? I mean, if they can't build trust with communities, what's the point of having a nonprofit in the first place?

And don't even get me started on institutional knowledge... my grandma used to volunteer at a local animal shelter and she knew everyone in that community. If you have people jumping in and out all the time, how do you expect them to build those relationships? It's like trying to put together a puzzle with missing pieces .

I'm still trying to figure out if flexibility is really the answer here... maybe they need to rethink their business models or something .