Numbers in business are a big deal.
We want growth, or in the charitable sector, funders want to see more people served.
However, I’ve always found the constant push to grow the number of clients and customers as an odd way to evaluate success.
I run a medium sized charity and the top question we get asked is: how many kids did you serve? For us, the annual average is about 4500. Big number, but tiny in comparison to some of the large charities and programs we get benchmarked against.
In my view, the true question should be: What’s the quality of the relationships?
For example, many programs run a couple hours a week for a season of a few months totaling about 20 to 30 hours. Our program, by comparison, serves kids daily, year round, with an average of 300 hours. If they join our summer programs, that number hits 600 hours per year. This means the service we provide to 1 youth in our program is equivalent to 20 kids in other programs.
Some people see this as bad: why are you investing so much into one child when you could serve 20? My argument back is always: why aren’t we investing the same amount into all 20? I ran these quick access programs for a decade, and while there is certainly an important role for access, I realized they did not create systemic change. No really barriers were being broken.
While I’ve never been in the business of making money, I assume there’s a like comparison to say that quick transactions make cash flow, but don’t build loyalty, community or returning customers. It’s not much different here. The breadth, depth and consistency of relationship is what matters.
So, when we evaluate our investment into programs, charities and social causes we should not just be asking about the numbers of people served, but the quality of relationship and the organizations ability to make meaningful impact. Again, similar to business, one time customers are not the same as those loyal to your product, brand and therefore repeat.
It is why I am constantly pushing my own organization to grow its scope of programming. If the average child is in our program for 5 years, why not 10 years? What ways are we growing to match the needs of the kids we served when they were 8 years old to make sure they have that community at 18 years old? It should not stop there either. How are they still connected to our work at 28, 48 and 68, whether it’s as a staff member, volunteer, donor or still a program participant.
Sounds a bit cliche, but the number I keep in my sights is one.
One ecosystem.
Needs are meet, strengths are realized and fostered, those strengths then help the next person in need.
Diseñadora UX / Arquitecta
2wBy far the worst customer service I have ever received in my life. My package was stolen by the UPS delivery person, and not only does BESTBUY not take responsibility for my refund, but they also do not respond to UPS, who agree with me just by looking at the delivery photo. Now I am in a constant battle with this subpar company to get my money back.