Through an analysis of the Society's long history, Part One of this study revealed many of the reasons for the institution's present difficulties. Events that occurred over a century ago continue to have an impact, as do management decisions made much more recently. But what can other nonprofit institutions learn from the Society's story? Are there general propositions that emerge from an analysis of the Society's situation?
There are obviously dangers in trying to draw general conclusions based on a study of a single institution. Every organization is unique and has its own idiosyncrasies. The discussion that follows will tend to apply more directly to institutions that are similar to the Society or at least share some of its basic characteristics. Given that premise, it is helpful to list a few of the key attributes that define a relevant universe of comparable institutions. They are:
Older institutions
Institutions that own valuable fixed assets
Institutions that own and maintain valuable collections of art, artifacts, or library materials
Institutions with high fixed operating costs
Institutions that do not generate significant levels of earned income
The general lessons that emerge from this analysis of the Society fall into three categories. The first has to do with the nature of a nonprofit institution's assets. The second concerns the need for balance between a nonprofit institution's sources and uses of funds. And the third focuses on the signal importance of governance to the long-term health of organizations in the nonprofit sector.