Thursday, September 30, 2010

Social Innovation

Books about it are becoming much more common and that is a very good thing.

This review, from The Philanthropy Roundtable, examines the new book by Stephen Goldsmith—one of our more insightful public sector thinkers—The Power of Social Innovation, which I posted on earlier.

An excerpt from the review from The Philanthropy Roundtable.

“It’s a tale of two caricatures. In liberal imaginations, conservatives think that government programs don’t pull people out of poverty but that people pull themselves up out of poverty, Horatio Alger–style. To a conservative mind, liberals appear to believe that all poor people are structurally unable to advance, and that only sweeping government intervention can work. Of course, most people, conservative or liberal, sit somewhere between these two extremes. In his new book, The Power of Social Innovation, Stephen Goldsmith stakes out this broad middle ground.

“Social innovation,” as Goldsmith uses the term, simply refers to how social service providers (nonprofit and governmental) can solve social problems by providing clients (the poor, for instance) with positive incentives and treating them as active agents in the process. The traditional, top-down, service-delivery model has created “entrenched underperforming social safety net systems of providers, government and philanthropic funders, advocates, and interest groups,” Goldsmith writes. Thus, he says, we need “civic entrepreneurs” to shift the power dynamic and make real change possible on an individual and community level. “Transformation occurs as these social risk-takers help change residents from passive recipients of government services to productive, tax-paying members of society,” he adds.

“Stephen Goldsmith is the right man to write this book. He served two terms as Mayor of Indianapolis, advised President George W. Bush on faith-based and nonprofit issues, and chaired the Corporation for National and Community Service under Presidents Bush and Obama. Shortly after he published this volume, he was appointed by Michael Bloomberg to serve as Deputy Mayor of Operations for New York City—overseeing many of Gotham’s biggest service agencies.

“For a politician, Goldsmith is candid about the shortcomings in how nonprofits relate to government, and he cites his own experience along with other national and local examples. Many nonprofits refuse to let go of ineffective programs, because these programs are their lifeblood and to do so would jeopardize their existence. This, argues Goldsmith, prevents people with new ideas from entering the market. “The comfort of long-term relationships often undermines entrepreneurial opportunity,” he writes. Incumbent nonprofit service providers are therefore skilled at nurturing the “political and philanthropic contacts necessary to sustain their model, regardless of performance.” “Meanwhile, clients do not have choices, nor is their feedback solicited; and service providers do not have incentives to do better.

“For an example of nonprofits more attuned to political patronage than service provision, Goldsmith turns to United Way CEO Brian Gallagher, whom he quotes as saying: “Columbus [Ohio] had a deep, rich history of settlement houses, and we were trying to move away from this program funding. . . . [T]hey had learned to become the best program funding recipients ever. They knew politics: how to get to a city council member. I went to the godfather of the seven or eight settlement houses in the city and said, ‘I will go to my board and get a guarantee that you will get $750,000 or $850,000 and it will not be at risk over the next three years.’” The result? The settlement houses were not interested in funding that might force them to change their top-down delivery system.

“When nonprofits seek the support (both financial and moral) of citizens, however, they are in a stronger position to tackle social problems. One of the most enlightening chapters of The Power of Social Innovation is about “Building a Public”—how civic entrepreneurs build a movement by creating citizen demand for change. “Civic progress requires that those who advocate for new interventions build a community of engaged citizens to demand change in social-political systems,” Goldsmith writes. He cites the example of Sara Horowitz, who founded a national membership organization called Working Today. Horowitz asked freelancers what they wanted and provided them with what they identified as their top need: health insurance. (Working Today is now aligned with a 501(c)(4) called the Freelancers Union, which provides health insurance and a retirement plan to 120,000 independent workers.)”

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Local Parks, Privatization & Nonprofit Management

As this story in today’s Sacramento Bee notes, the only proposal submitted to take over Gibson Park would privatize it, creating a social enterprise, and if that works to keep this beloved park open to the public, that is very good news.

The grassroots group formed to examine how to increase taxes—which is very bad news—to fund regional parks is also considering a nonprofit conservancy, which is very good news.

An excerpt from today’s Bee story.

“Sacramento County only received one bid from someone looking to take over Gibson Ranch – a proposal from former Rep. Doug Ose, a developer who wants to run the public park as a for-profit venture.

“This revelation, which county parks officials mentioned at a Tuesday hearing on the future of regional parks, leaves the Board of Supervisors with few clear options for the park, which supervisors have already determined they can't afford to keep open. The head of county parks, Janet Baker, said her department doesn't have a backup plan and officials aren't sure what they'll do if Ose's proposal doesn't pass….”.

“A grass-roots working group of parks supporters has started the legwork to get an initiative on the ballot in November 2012, which – if passed – could create a regional park district similar to the East Bay Regional Park District. The working group updated supervisors on its progress at Tuesday's board meeting.

“Thanks to $50,000 in donations, the group has commissioned the Trust for Public Land to study the feasibility of several options for structuring a new district and to essentially poll public opinion to see if a measure might pass.

“Another consultant is preparing a budget estimate and studying a nonprofit conservancy option.”

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Nonprofits, Government & Forprofits

In this article from The Oklahoman, mostly focusing on government, but also applicable to many large mostly government funded 501 c 3 nonprofits, the author takes their often perverse incentives to task.

An excerpt.

"Philadelphia Scandal Underscores Pitiful State of Public Housing Oversight," read Jonathan Berr's Aug. 28 report in the Daily Finance. It was a story about Carl Greene, the embattled director of the Philadelphia Housing Authority (PHA). He was put on paid leave while the board investigates charges that he settled four sexual harassment claims against him without notifying the PHA, doled out work to politically connected law firms and pressured employees to donate to his favorite nonprofit. Greene also is being investigated by the U.S. Attorney General Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and HUD's Office of Inspector General. They have yet to bring criminal charges against him.

“People always act surprised by revelations of political corruption but the PHA corruption is highly probable in nonprofit entities such as government. Because of ignorance and demagoguery, being profit-motivated has become suspicious and possibly a dirty word. Nonprofit is seen as more righteous. Very often, people pompously stand before us and declare, "We're a nonprofit organization." They expect for us to believe that since they're not in it for money, they are somehow above self-interest and have the public interest as their motivation.

“People are always self-interested. It's just when they manage a nonprofit organization such as the Philadelphia Housing Authority, government entities in general, universities and charitable organizations, they face a different set of constraints on their behavior.

“The fundamental difference between nonprofit organizations and their profit-making counterparts is that nonprofits tend to take a greater portion of their compensation from easier working conditions, more time off, favors and under-the-table payments. Profit-making organizations take a greater portion of their compensation in cash, except those that are highly regulated.

“In the profit-making world, there is much greater monitoring of the behavior of people who act for the organization. Profit-making organizations have a financial bottom line they must meet, or sooner or later, heads will roll. Not so with nonprofits, which have no bottom line to meet. On top of that, incompetence for nonprofits means bigger budgets, higher pay and less oversight.”

Monday, September 27, 2010

Evaluating Nonprofits

What should be standard practice hasn’t been, but that unfortunate reality is beginning to change as governments are now asking, “What are the programmatic results of public funds being given to nonprofits to perform public service?”, as this story from the San Francisco Examiner reports.

An excerpt.

“The City spent nearly half a billion dollars last year contracting out social services to hundreds of nonprofits but lacked the ability to track how the money was spent.

“City Hall is now calling for accountability and oversight in how public money is doled out to these agencies in light of the fiscal crisis.

“The City recently closed a budget deficit in excess of $400 million and is facing a similarly sized deficit for next fiscal year, which begins July 1.

“Outside consultants are evaluating violence-prevention programs for youth in San Francisco’s most troubled neighborhoods, which The City is spending $10 million on, and at services treating those with substance abuse problems, which cost The City $50 million.

“This will help us make more strategic funding decisions and derive greater benefit from each dollar spent for San Francisco residents,” said Catherine Spaulding, an auditor with the City Controller’s Office.

“About $477.5 million was given last year to 841 nonprofit groups, providing an array of services.

“One nonprofit operating a substance abuse program with a focus on the Asian and Pacific Islander population was paid $18 million during that fiscal year, and two others, a housing clinic in the Tenderloin and a group that provides residential treatment for the mentally ill, were paid about $14 million each.

“The City paid 104 nonprofits in excess of $1 million each, and about 60 were paid between $500,000 and $1 million, according to the database overseen by the City Controller’s Office.

“The new studies are designed to provide The City with an improved system of measuring outcomes of the services to guide funding decisions for years to come, such as by judging a program’s success by client recidivism rates.

“One study will examine the $10 million annually given to 60 youth violence prevention groups working in five “hotspot” areas of crime, including the Tenderloin, South of Market and the Western Addition, and spending $1.4 million on job-training services.

“We feel strongly we need to have more outcome-based measures,” said Maria Su, executive director of the Department of Children Youth and Their Families, which funds some of the nonprofits.

“In a separate study, the nonprofits funded by the Public Health Department for substance abuse services are undergoing a three-year evaluation, with monitoring of those served.

“There are some groups that have not been evaluated, and you always want to evaluate your programs to ensure that there are good outcomes and to improve where there isn’t,” said Barbara Garcia, deputy health director.

“The studies come at a time that could help city officials make difficult funding choices during the tough financial times. But it could be a tough battle.

“Unfortunately, politics and political relationships in San Francisco often trump our concerted efforts to hold some nonprofits accountable for the outcomes their clients deserve,” Mayor Gavin Newsom’s spokesman Tony Winnicker said.”

Friday, September 24, 2010

What do Donors Want?

This article from The Nonprofit Quarterly is an excellent overview summary of the current research asking and answering that question, while keeping in mind the most important question, "How well does our program fulfill our mission?"

An excerpt.

“When Sigmund Freud asked, “What do women want?” he probably didn’t anticipate the firestorm his question would incite. Some thought the question absurd in its assumption that women could be categorized like butterfly species or wine varietals. Others believed the answer to be patently obvious: Women want what men want. Case closed.

“What’s clear is that Freud’s inquiry has become a cautionary tale about what can happen when seemingly well-intentioned questions miss their mark, eliciting eye rolling (“Don’t we already know this?”) or head scratching (“The question doesn’t take into account the complexity of what it’s studying”).

“That doesn’t stop these questions from popping up, though.

“What do donors want?” seemed to be the question behind a series of grants that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation recently awarded to two private consulting firms to encourage more philanthropy, particularly among high-net-worth individuals. One $3 million grant was given to Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors to develop tools, share knowledge, and disseminate best practices designed to increase giving and impact. Bridgespan received the other grant, in the amount of $5 million, to develop several products, including interactive web tools designed to help donors make better decisions about their investments.

“Reactions to the Gates Foundation grants varied. Some were pleased to see such a powerful show of support for enhancing philanthropic giving. Others thought this money would have been better spent on addressing more pressing needs, particularly at a time when many nonprofits are in dire straits financially. And there were a lot of people who were unsure about the value of these new resources, given the surfeit of research that already exists about philanthropy, including well-funded studies by think tanks, universities, consulting firms, and foundations exploring everything from why people give to why they volunteer.

“In short, many wondered: Do donors want more information about nonprofits and, if so, what kind? And if they have it, will it change their minds about what they support?”

Thursday, September 23, 2010

Government Funding Reduces Philanthropy

An obvious conclusion—I’m already donating through my taxes—which this study seems to support, that nonprofits who are supported largely by government funds receive less in private philanthropy, as reported by the Neiman Journalism Lab.

An excerpt.

“At a time when some Americans are talking about increasing government support for journalism, here’s an interesting new study that adds a useful data point to the discussion: When governments provide financial support to nonprofit organizations, 73 percent of the extra money is counterbalanced by a decline in support from private donors. In other words, the value of government money received is decreased by a reduction in funds from elsewhere.

“The paper is by Jim Andreoni of UC San Diego and A. Abigail Payne of Canada’s McMaster University, and it examines over 8,000 nonprofit organizations. The idea that government funding reduces private giving is not new, but this paper attempts to figure out why — and how — the trade-off occurs. Is it because private donors think that government grants eliminate their own need to give — the idea that they “already gave at the office” through their tax dollars? Or is it because getting government money causes nonprofits to relax, to reduce how aggressively they pursue outside money through fundraising?

“Andreoni and Payne come down squarely on the side of the latter — it’s primarily nonprofits’ own reduction of their own fundraising efforts that lead to less outside support, not any change of heart by donors. When the government gives, nonprofits take that as an opportunity to cut back on fundraising, even though fundraising is highly cost-effective; the paper finds an average $5 return in gifts for every $1 spent on raising money. Reducing fundraising may save some cash in the short term, but it doesn’t appear to be a smart strategy.”

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Fundraising & Skipping Stones

Yes, there is a connection, as revealed in this very nice reflection from Burks Blog, by Penelope Burk, whose book, Donor Centered Fundraising, is an essential resource which I have in my library.

An excerpt.

“My record is nine – a single stone skipping nine times across the lake before it sinks to the bottom. The problem is, I achieved this personal milestone at the age of fourteen, when my father was sailing, my mother was out shopping, and my siblings were…well, scattered all over the place. I was home because I was supposed to be doing my homework. I wasn’t. And, now, my monumental achievement could not be independently verified. It served me right.

“I didn’t realize it at the time, but skipping stones – which I did often – was a precursor to my later interest in numbers and patterns and, eventually, how they are both important to understanding and influencing behavior.

“That influence was in full gear recently as I left my local mall, weighed down with purchases. People were hurrying in both directions through the heavy glass doors. These doors are particularly vicious; they are a barrier to the cold wind that whips through them in the winter, and they create a virtual vacuum seal when they close. It takes a monumental effort to pull one open, and even when you accomplish it, you then have to move very quickly through the gap to avoid being whacked. So, shoppers are motivated to fall strategically in behind someone else, close enough that the person in front will see or sense that someone is there and, hopefully, hold the door open.

“There was a time when letting the door go in someone’s face was unthinkable, but not so today. So, I was frustrated, but not surprised, when the person in front of me did just that. I scrambled to grab the handle before the door closed completely, missed, dropped all my parcels, and caused a pedestrian traffic jam. No one was concerned for my welfare; on the contrary, they were visibly irritated at my having broken the rhythm as they stepped over my stuff.

“Now, if my readers “of a certain age” are thinking, “Young people today…they’re just uncivilized”, the cavalier door-slammer was in his fifties, wearing a business suit and carrying a briefcase.

“After pulling myself and my purchases together, I mused — I never let the door go and I always break my stride when necessary so that the person behind, regardless of how far from the door, will not have it slammed in his or her face. (OK, so I’m a saint.) As I thought about this, I realized that I feel good when I hold the door for the next person. If the individual is right behind, he usually offers a quick thanks or a smile; if she is further away, she quickens her pace so I won’t be inconvenienced, gives a more pronounced and often surprised, “thank you”, and makes direct eye contact.

“I decided to conduct an experiment. I watched from the sidelines (alternatively pretending to tie my shoe or rearrange my parcels) while observing whether people did or did not hold the door open for others. Two out of three did not. But, whether the action was positive (holding the door for the next person) or negative (letting it go), it influenced the same behavior in those who followed….until someone broke the pattern. I turned my attention to the positive 33%. With a skill honed decades earlier from skipping stones when I should have been doing other things, I soon determined that a chain of three was the norm, but that occasionally it grew to five. I wondered whether exceptionally positive behavior could extend the chain longer. (Could my record of nine skips across the lake be beaten?!) I was really into this now.

“I became the instrument of my own experiment. Moving into place, I chose a door with less traffic, stepped through, held the door open, looked back and smiled at the person several steps behind. She quickened her pace, but my smile said, “No need to hurry; I’ll hold the door open for you.” This extra effort on my part inspired the same in her, and a chain of six was the end result. I took up position again, this time holding the door open for a man. Same thing. Men, women, young, old – it didn’t matter. The greater the positive effort by the person controlling the door, the more likely it was that the chain of positive behavior that ensued was longer.

“I kept this up for some time, until Mall security became quite interested in me.

“You’re probably wondering what this has to do with fundraising. While I know you can figure out the metaphor, there is a statistic that might interest you. 89% of American households give. This means that at any moment in time, there is a nine out of ten chance that if you don’t hold the door open for the person behind you, you’ll be slamming it in a donor’s face.”

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

Fulfilling Mission

The mission social entrepreneurs embrace when they decide to put their energy and passion towards bettering the world, need not always—though almost always—be fulfilled through nonprofit status.

This article from the Chronicle of Philanthropy blog notes another way.

An excerpt.

“I recently bumped into Debbie Reck, founder and executive director of Writers’ Express, a youth writing program.

“Her organization has had real success with its curriculum and has seen increasing demand for its programs from other markets in recent years.

“Debbie and I have spoken a few times over the past year about the quality of the group's programs and how it has been trying to find the right funding partnerships to help it expand.

“It had relied on a couple of committed funders and some supportive board members. But it had never connected with significant “equity investors” that could provide the capital necessary to help grow and support its infrastructure. As a result, it hadn't yet been able to scale up—to replicate its work on a larger scale.

“When I had last talked to Debbie at the end of 2009, she told me that she felt caught between funders who were asking her to adjust the Writers' Express goals to meet their own funding priorities and private-sector companies that saw real value in Writers’ Express programs. These companies were looking to commoditize the organization's programs for broader distribution.

“Debbie’s goal, though, was simply to hold on to the mission of Writers’ Express—to give all students the power to explore their ideas, the skills to communicate them clearly, and the conviction that the world wants to hear them.

“So when I saw Debbie earlier this month, I was anxious for an update. She explained that after many years of trying to scrape together philanthropic funding to keep Writers' Express moving forward, she had decided to take the private-sector route. She sold most of its programs to a national company, Wireless Generation, which provides tools and services to 200,000 teachers and 3 million students.

“Debbie had moved with the programs to the new company and when I asked her what the decision meant for her, I was struck by the response.

”It’s great," she said. "Finally I can focus on mission."

Monday, September 20, 2010

Charities See Reduced Donations

In an obvious consequence of the tough economic times and donors increasing demands that charities prove their effectiveness, charitable giving has declined, as this story from the Sacramento Bee notes.

An excerpt.

“An industry that relies on giving is taking some lumps these days.

“Northern California charitable organizations big and small have seen donations decline as the recession, high unemployment and declining home values erode donors' wealth.

“Competition for the dwindling pool of private donations is also up, since nonprofits that long relied on government funding have been hurt by local and state budget cuts. The affected nonprofits have stepped into an already crowded pool of organizations seeking donations from recession-battered businesses, foundations and consumers.

"It's a very challenging environment at the moment," said Steve Heath, president and CEO of United Way California Capital Region, which kicked off its annual workplace giving campaign this month at the Sacramento Convention Center.

“The United Way campaign is the region's largest, seeking donations from workers at some 700 employers in Sacramento, El Dorado, Placer, Yolo and Amador counties. Scores of nonprofits benefit from the campaign.

“Regional United Way officials hope this year's campaign will turn around a two-year giving slump coinciding with the recession.

“Following a 7.6 percent year-to-year gain to nearly $14.7 million in its 2007-08 campaign, United Way saw contributions dip 2.1 percent – to nearly $14.4 million – in 2008-09, followed by another 8.7 percent drop to $13.1 million in 2009-10.

“Heath said area giving is still impressive, given double-digit unemployment, business failures and thousands of workers whose wages were either cut or frozen.

"The fact that we could do what we did speaks to the willingness of people to give even during tough times," Heath said.”

Sunday, September 19, 2010

Helping Others

There was a very nice story of a young man helping others in the Sacramento Bee yesterday.

An excerpt.

“For almost two years, Alex Darrow saved the money he earned from his dishwashing job at a pizza place and stashed the cash he had received for Christmas and his birthday.

“Many 16-year-olds would be saving for a new car, but Darrow was saving to launch a website that aims to raise money for needy children around the world – and create the world's largest photo mosaic at the same time.

“Only after the Placer High School senior laid the foundation for the site, PictureTheWorld, did he tell his parents. Darrow still hasn't clued friends in to what keeps him so busy during the week as he goes door-to-door to Auburn businesses seeking support.

"I didn't want to tell my parents if it was going to fail," he said. "They are definitely proud of me."

“The concept is this: A person visits www.ptwonline.org and donates at least $5, then uploads a picture for the mosaic. The proceeds will be split among philanthropic groups such as 88Bikes, Doctors Without Borders and UCSF Benioff Children's Hospital.”

Saturday, September 18, 2010

Passion in Communications

Following up on yesterday’s post, this article from Contributions Magazine looks at the importance of putting some passion into communications—boring doesn’t get read or remembered—and remembering the strategic component of communicating with current or potential donors.

An excerpt.

“The author Barry Lopez once offered me good advice.

“We were talking about land conservation, and he noted that many wealthy individuals are not motivated to give by frightening statistics about the loss of species. With some donors, you have to emphasize the beauty and grandeur of a landscape. You have to say, “If we don’t save this land, it will break your daughter’s heart.”

“I suspect his observation applies to communicating with all donors – no matter what the cause. Getting emotional in a fundraising proposal can be just as important as being rational – if not more so.

“The overwhelming nature of some disasters can leave many donors feeling helpless (“How can I possibly make a difference?”), whereas conveying the simple joy of one family’s recovery can inspire.

“Supporting hospice care may seem a downer until the donor understands the remarkable compassion and dignity that an institution brings to caring in a patient’s final days.

“Training the jobless is no longer a wearisome story when a prospect sees the soaring hope in the life of a poor youth who has put new skills to work in his first job.

“This is not to say that donors don’t care about hard facts and outcomes. Foundation officers want fresh, thoughtful programs. Corporate donors keep a sharp watch on the bottom line and the impacts on people and places where they operate.

“But individual donors are another story.

“They have individual reasons for giving – and those personal, sometimes quirky reasons often stem from deep emotional attachments, such as affection for alma mater, or for the hospital that saved a loved one’s life. A well-crafted proposal will address those feelings and become a means of release – allowing the donor to act on his emotional commitment by giving you money. The better you know your prospect, the better your chances of striking just the right emotional note.

“Getting emotional does not mean getting carried away. The best proposals are always calm and understated. They do not allow for direct emotional outbursts. But there are ways to gently push a donor’s buttons and make clear that you are offering an opportunity for him or her to act out of heartfelt need.”

Friday, September 17, 2010

Donor Communications

It is something that is absolutely crucial, but can be abused by either too much communication, or too little.

This article from Contributions Magazine examines the issue.

An excerpt.

“I’ve had recent conversations with development directors who were concerned about the possibility of overloading people with communications from their organization. What’s interesting is that the folks I’ve talked with, when asked about their actual communications frequency, invariably responded with an answer something like the following:

• “We send a quarterly newsletter -- when we can.”

• “They get a receipt every month and our magazine twice a year.”

• “We’re thinking about adding two appeals per year to our quarterly update.”

“If you make similar statements, or have questions (or qualms!) about optimizing communication frequencies for your donors, I hope you’ll consider this fundamental principle:

“People make time for the things they enjoy. Period.

“Worries about communications frequency are not the primary issue – as long as your donor communications are doing the job they should be doing in engaging the hearts and minds of your donors. In these few paragraphs I’ll show you why most communications from nonprofits to partners are simply misguided and, therefore, failing to engage their intended audience.

“First let me dissuade you of the notion that you are overloading people with communications. I've been in this arena for thirty years and I can tell you with the utmost confidence that the most serious problem for nonprofits is underwhelming their donors with their communications. And I mean that both in terms of frequency and quality. While I won't say dogmatically that every donor should have a frequency of X number of contacts per year, I can say that organizations tend to be too timid in the number of times they contact their donors.”

Thursday, September 16, 2010

Process Innovation

New ways to do things are always popping up, and while some are not so good, others are brilliant.

This one, noted in an article from Governing, is the latter.

An excerpt.

“It’s like the chicken-and-the-egg conundrum: which comes first, leadership or process improvement techniques? Recent success stories of governments using Lean Six Sigma, a process improvement program, suggest the secret may be combining leadership with a process focus.

“In the wake of the Katrina disaster five years ago, one Louisiana state agency leader used the “clean slate” provided as an opportunity to redesign the eligibility determination process for health-care benefits for the needy.

“Ruth Kennedy, director of eligibility for Medicaid and the Children Health Insurance programs at Louisiana’s Department of Health and Hospitals, had been attempting to reform the eligibility determination process for several years. But when Hurricane Katrina hit, the eligibility system was largely wiped out. Staff and clients had been evacuated. Records were destroyed. Offices had to be replaced. Kennedy declared: “I don’t want to just rebuild. I want to build an improved system.”

“Using Lean Six Sigma techniques, Louisiana designed a caseload management system based on the “pull” concept rather than the old approach of supervisors assigning batches of cases. Instead, available caseworkers would pull pending applications from a queue. This shifted the mentality of caseworkers from “my” cases to “our” cases.

“Kennedy used common sense management and basic process management techniques to redesign this vital element of service delivery. In the end, she made a huge difference for thousands of beneficiaries of Louisiana’s public health-care system. In the process, she showed that, while process improvement techniques like Lean Six Sigma helps, it is leadership that matters.”

Wednesday, September 15, 2010

Working in the Nonprofit World

Women comprise a majority of the workers in nonprofits, and that is the subject of this article from Blue Avocado.

An excerpt.

“The facts are that women comprise 70-75% of nonprofit employees (Nonprofit Almanac 2007). The experience of Ed Seay of Help Network in Russellville, Arkansas, reflects this exactly: "You go to a United Way quarterly meeting," he remarked, "and there might be one other man in a room of 35 people." But this, as they say, is just the tip of the iceberg of what it's like for men who work in the female-majority nonprofit sector.

“Male and female stereotypes

“Readers' experiences show that gender stereotypes -- both pernicious and benign -- haven't gone away. There are stereotypes about men ("men who work in nonprofits are those who couldn't make it in the for-profit sector") and about women (women are good managers because they're nurturing rather than because they're strategic or rainmakers).

“Several men spoke about being looked down upon for their nonprofit jobs by men in the for-profit sector. "I often get 'The Look' from men I know," commented one man. "My male friends work in the for-profit sector, they don't understand the nonprofit sector. The Look is the facial expression of 'Oh, how good of you to work in a nonprofit.'"

“Another man said something similar: "In the for-profit sector I'm seen as a man who couldn't make it in the real world." Still another laughed: "The Look! At first it actually bothered me, my whole masculine identity being challenged." Then the nice guy in him couldn't help but add, "Then I saw it as an opportunity for education."

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

USA Is Charitable

Which we already know, but how we rank globally is interesting, as this article from the Denver Post reports.

An excerpt.

“NEW YORK — Australia and New Zealand shared first place, and the United States tied for fifth, in a first-of-its- kind survey ranking 153 nations on the willingness of their citizens to donate time and money to charity. China ranked near the bottom, barely higher than last-place Madagascar.

“The report, released Wednesday by the British-based Charities Aid Foundation, showed striking variations in charitable behavior around the world.

“For example, it found that only 4 percent of Lithuanians gave money to charity, compared with 83 percent of people in Malta; 61 percent of people in Turkmenistan did volunteer work, compared with 2 percent of Cambodians.

“The overall rankings were a composite of three categories — the percentage of people who donated money, donated time and helped a stranger in the month before being surveyed.

“Australia and New Zealand topped the index with an average score of 57 percent, trailed by Canada and Ireland at 56 percent, and the United States and Switzerland at 55 percent.”

Monday, September 13, 2010

Growing To Scale

It is a dilemma any successful small nonprofit encounters—whether to grow or stay small—and this article from the Foundation Center, examines the issue.

An excerpt.

“For most, the concept of going to scale invokes a sense of the large, the systemic, the external. It brings to mind replication, expansion and spread — like tentacles, ever-reaching, ever-growing. But taking a single project, or a concept, and trying to make it "work" for everyone leads to forced, false constructs and a single vision of "success" or "the good life." It negates the beauty of the diversity of human existence.

“Instead, we at the Global Youth Leadership Collaborative (GC) invite a different perspective on scale — inviting a billion flowers to bloom into many possibilities of human life. As the Zapatistas say, "we want a world that embraces many worlds." Going to scale for us means linking the personal, the interpersonal, and the systemic levels of change. We have to look at who we are as people today, what is happening in our relationships, and what is happening in the communities and world we live in, then try to bring each level into alignment with our deepest values.

“The GC formed about three years ago. We are a group of fifteen activists from thirteen countries (Peru, Brazil, Bolivia, Egypt, Palestine, Lebanon, India, Thailand, Senegal, Kenya, Aotearoa/New Zealand, Canada, and the United States). We work on environmental justice, building learning communities, healthy food systems, indigenous sovereignty, cultural articulation, sustainability, health and healing, and more. Our community grew out of the World Youth Leadership Jams, events co-organized by YES! and a number of other organizations. Jams pull together a diverse community for a week based on community building, personal reflection, and commitment to social change.

“Together, we at the GC administer a flow fund, in which a pool of money is divided up equally among all our members, who are connected deeply to the work and context of communities. We believe people on the ground understand the needs of our times and are able to use our rootedness and nimbleness to effect transformative change. We have hosted many different gatherings for young activists in our regions and countries, supported media projects that link diverse and divided communities, and conducted numerous other efforts. We believe in getting a "big bang for the buck," which can happen only when resources are in the right hands.”

Sunday, September 12, 2010

Family Foundations

A new report on family foundations by the Institute for Philanthropy, is available, as reported by the Foundation Center.

An excerpt.

“The Institute for Philanthropy has issued a report highlighting the challenges and opportunities of family philanthropy as well as the development of the next generation of family foundation leaders. The report, Tomorrow's Donors: Engaging the Next Generation of Family Philanthropists (32 pages, PDF), includes six case studies from around the world; advice for how to teach strategic skills, avoid conflict, and pass on values within family foundations; and ten tips to encourage philanthropic participation within families, including clearly defining the foundation's mission, promoting intergenerational discussion, and considering a junior board for family foundation newcomers.”

Saturday, September 11, 2010

Organizational Alignment

It is a crucial, though often unlooked aspect of organizational success, which is why two of the five steps helping nonprofits grow on our website are related:

"Mission: Congruent with founding core beliefs.
Strategic Plan: Aligned with mission and guiding principles; reviewed regularly."

This article from Governing examines administrative/strategy alignment.

An excerpt.

“Are your administrative systems aligned with your strategy?

“Take this little test:

• Do you tell your people to look for ways to save money, while your budget system takes away any unspent money at the end of the year and reduces the base budget the following year?
• Are you trying to discourage empire building, turf and bloated staffing patterns while your job classification system awards more points based on the number of people supervised?
• When purchasing services, do you encourage your people to get the best value (results for the dollar) possible while your procurement and contracting systems pay for units of service (such as consulting hours) and not for results achieved?
• Do you tell your people that results are important while 95 percent of your organization's accounting system measures inputs, like full-time equivalents, space or travel, and its ability to measure results is minimal?

“Each "yes" answer highlights an administrative system contradicting your stated strategy. Believe me, the administrative systems win every time.

“Consider the entrepreneurial big city mayor who is passionate about innovation and encourages his department heads to take risks. He is constantly exhorting his people to try new things. His systems send a different message, however. His own office is filled with good people whose job it is to make sure that no one screws up. His budget office asks a million questions about anything new while blindly approving existing activities. And his organizational measurement systems reward how inputs are used, not what results are achieved.

“Moving Toward Alignment

“One way to tackle this problem is to completely redesign your administrative systems so that they are well aligned with your strategy. This is particularly important if your organization is spending millions on so-called enterprise resource planning information systems. Too many organizations are investing ERP dollars in automating misaligned systems -- paving over the cow paths.”

Friday, September 10, 2010

Network Solutions

Following up on yesterday’s post, this article on collaboration by network amplifies that post with this article from Venture Partners.

An excerpt.

“It seems that almost everywhere you go these days, nonprofit and foundation leaders alike are talking about ways to foster and increase collaboration. In these difficult times, when resources seem to be vanishing while the demand for services continues to increase, it makes sense that organizations consider working together to make available resources go further and perhaps achieve greater results.

“In principle, everyone wants to collaborate, but the reality of making it happen is extremely tough. Collaboration can be a loaded word. Today, when funders talk about “collaborating,” nonprofits sometimes hear the term as code for “merger.” The truth is, the nonprofit sector has been talking about collaboration for a long, long time, and for many, the word has become hollow because so often, the “collaborations” are forced, inefficient, for show only, or fail to result in any meaningful action or results.

“The reality of the current funding system for nonprofits is that these organizations find themselves competing against the very organizations with whom they might collaborate. To consider teaming up with a competitor requires a whole new way of thinking and behaving. It requires developing trust, which takes time, and additional organizational capacity, and time and capacity are as scarce to nonprofit leaders as capital. It also means breaking down the silos and “turf” that a competitive funding environment creates. Nonprofit leaders rarely have the luxury to step back and think through the “sweet spots” of potential collaboration – areas where time and effort put into coordinating with others in a strategic way could result in concrete “returns” for the organization and the population served.

“Yet research in the last few years shows that collaborating, and more specifically, partnering with more than one organization to create a network for change, can allow nonprofits to have much greater impact than they could ever have on their own. As Jane Wei-Skillern and Sonia Marciano wrote in spring of 2008 in their Stanford Social Innovation Review (SSIR) article, The Networked Nonprofit.

“By mobilizing resources outside their immediate control, networked nonprofits achieve their mission far more efficiently, effectively, and sustainably than they could have by working alone. Many traditional nonprofits form short-term partnerships with superficially similar organizations to execute a single program, exchange a few resources, or attract funding. In contrast, networked nonprofits forge long-term partnerships with trusted peers to tackle their missions on multiple fronts.”

“One of Wei-Skillern and Marciano’s key findings was that networked nonprofits “are some of the most effective nonprofits in the world,” and they put their mission above their own individual organizations.”

Thursday, September 9, 2010

Building a Movement

Sometimes, the most important thing a nonprofit does is build a movement to enhance the cause its mission is built on, and that always involves a network, which this article from the Nonprofit Quarterly looks at.

An excerpt.

“An individual social movement can span many generations. During that time, it is likely to face many different, complicated political contexts. As time passes, a social movement develops its analysis of a problem and changes the language and definitions of things. Often, it meets success and then encounters the next round of problems caused by the preliminary solution gained. Its members will have passionate disagreements about strategy and approach such that they part ways and new members with new views emerge. In other words, movements are living beings, affected by all manner of influences and sometimes embodying great diversity. It is a marvel, then, that any social movement network stays knit together long enough to accomplish big societal change. How do these movement networks do it?

“Networks are not social movements; but social-justice movements need networks,” says Marco Davis, a veteran network builder in the Latino community. For anyone involved in a grassroots effort to create change, this statement may seem obvious. But it is hardly simple to describe or understand—even when you are right in the middle of it.

“What movement-oriented networks do best, and what it takes to build and invest in them over time, often seems difficult to pin down. At Management Assistance Group (MAG), my colleagues and I have worked with organizations that are part of movement networks, those that act as network hubs, and those that come together to create new networks. Some movement networks flourish and others falter. I set out to deepen our understanding of these movement networks by reviewing the scholarly research and interviewing creative, committed leaders who have built networks, even in the most unfriendly environments.

“The organic and responsive nature of networks makes them difficult to study. Networks play essential roles within movements; but how they do so and even which roles they play are not static. This fluidity causes movement networks sometimes to appear disorganized and unwieldy, which has led some to devalue their contribution and others to push for formal structure and control.

“But a deeper look suggests that openness and flexibility are necessary components. Without the ability to learn, adapt, and change, these networks wither and become uninviting and ultimately irrelevant to new leaders. They lose their ability to authentically respond to political and membership complexities and ever-changing needs of movements in the context of the unstill waters of society.

“The Essential Roles of Movement Networks

“While there are many different types of networks, for the purposes of this article we define movement networks as the following:
1. multi-organizational: movement networks link independent organizations and activists to one another and through a central hub organization;
2. movement oriented: movement networks intentionally contribute to a broader social movement;
3. focused on the long term: movement networks stick together for the long haul and join to advance interests that extend beyond a single-issue campaign; and
4. porous: movement networks have more flexible boundaries than a formal franchise structure, such as the Girl Scouts or Habitat for Humanity.”

Wednesday, September 8, 2010

Donor Disclosure

The problem with it is that controversial nonprofit organizations could see revealed donors subject to political or public intimidation as a result, and that is not a good thing.

As important as is the need for transparency in public policy, donor privacy must be protected, and this article from the Chronicle of Philanthropy reports on an attempt to open donor records.

An excerpt.

“The National Alliance on Mental Illness includes something on its Web site that is highly unusual in the nonprofit world: detailed, up-to-date information about its donors.

“Each quarter it posts the names of all corporations and foundations that gave the charity more than $5,000, the specific amount they contributed, and how the money was spent.

“Visitors can see, for example, that in the second quarter of 2010, Pfizer paid $35,000 for a corporate membership; Ortho-McNneil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals $60,000 to NAMI Beginnings, the group’s quarterly magazine; and Eli Lilly $250,000 to the Campaign for a Better Tomorrow, a program to help the charity carry out its educational, advocacy, and training programs.

“The alliance, a prominent advocacy group in Arlington, Va., started posting such details last year after Sen. Charles E. Grassley, of Iowa, began to investigate its financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry.

“Now Mr. Grassley— the senior Republican on the Senate Finance Committee—is turning an eye to 33 additional nonprofit medical groups. And he has made it clear he would like them to follow the mental-illness alliance’s lead.

“These organizations have a lot of influence over public policy, and people rely on their leadership,” he says. “There’s a strong case for disclosure and the accountability that results.”

“Confidentiality of Donors

“While the investigation is focused on medical issues, it could have implications for all charities that receive donations from businesses in areas that overlap with their nonprofit missions.

“The Nature Conservancy, for example, recently came under fire from some supporters who worried that donations from BP were undermining the group’s response to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The nonprofit group had to spend time trying to allay such concerns, pointing to policies and procedures that they said prevented any undue influence.

“The investigation also challenges the notion, protected by law, that charities have discretion over how much to reveal to the public about their donors.”

Tuesday, September 7, 2010

Peter Senge

We have been looking at his central ideas over the past two days as he is an important thinker in organizational development, and someone whose works you would benefit from reading.

There is a wealth of information about him and his ideas on the internet.

Here is an excerpt from a good one.

“Peter M. Senge (1947- ) was named a ‘Strategist of the Century’ by the Journal of Business Strategy, one of 24 men and women who have ‘had the greatest impact on the way we conduct business today’ (September/October 1999). While he has studied how firms and organizations develop adaptive capabilities for many years at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), it was Peter Senge’s 1990 book The Fifth Discipline that brought him firmly into the limelight and popularized the concept of the ‘learning organization'. Since its publication, more than a million copies have been sold and in 1997, Harvard Business Review identified it as one of the seminal management books of the past 75 years.

“On this page we explore Peter Senge’s vision of the learning organization. We will focus on the arguments in his (1990) book The Fifth Discipline as it is here we find the most complete exposition of his thinking.

“Peter Senge

“Born in 1947, Peter Senge graduated in engineering from Stanford and then went on to undertake a masters on social systems modeling at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) before completing his PhD on Management. Said to be a rather unassuming man, he is is a senior lecturer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He is also founding chair of the Society for Organizational Learning (SoL). His current areas of special interest focus on decentralizing the role of leadership in organizations so as to enhance the capacity of all people to work productively toward common goals.

“Peter Senge describes himself as an 'idealistic pragmatist'. This orientation has allowed him to explore and advocate some quite ‘utopian’ and abstract ideas (especially around systems theory and the necessity of bringing human values to the workplace). At the same time he has been able to mediate these so that they can be worked on and applied by people in very different forms of organization. His areas of special interest are said to focus on decentralizing the role of leadership in organizations so as to enhance the capacity of all people to work productively toward common goals. One aspect of this is Senge’s involvement in the Society for Organizational Learning (SoL), a Cambridge-based, non-profit membership organization. Peter Senge is its chair and co-founder. SoL is part of a ‘global community of corporations, researchers, and consultants’ dedicated to discovering, integrating, and implementing ‘theories and practices for the interdependent development of people and their institutions’. One of the interesting aspects of the Center (and linked to the theme of idealistic pragmatism) has been its ability to attract corporate sponsorship to fund pilot programmes that carry within them relatively idealistic concerns.

“Aside from writing The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of The Learning Organization (1990), Peter Senge has also co-authored a number of other books linked to the themes first developed in The Fifth Discipline. These include The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies and Tools for Building a Learning Organization (1994); The Dance of Change: The Challenges to Sustaining Momentum in Learning Organizations (1999) and Schools That Learn (2000).

“The learning organization

“According to Peter Senge (1990: 3) learning organizations are:
…organizations where people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning to see the whole together.

“The basic rationale for such organizations is that in situations of rapid change only those that are flexible, adaptive and productive will excel. For this to happen, it is argued, organizations need to ‘discover how to tap people’s commitment and capacity to learn at all levels’ (ibid.: 4).”

Monday, September 6, 2010

Labor Day


Have a wonderful holiday, the weather looks to be perfect for a day on the river; and the world is, as usual, somewhat chaotic with overtones of peace and joy, (and a great golf tournament on tv) so enjoy the day!

Sunday, September 5, 2010

Learning, Becoming, Doing II

Another key aspect of organizational learning is systems thinking, learning to see the forest and the trees, understanding how your organization fits into the environment within which it works—the fifth discipline Senge (also quoted yesterday) writes about—and he says this in his book about it.

An excerpt.

“It is vital that the five disciplines [systems thinking, personal mastery, mental models, building shared vision, team learning] develop as an ensemble. This is challenging because it is much harder to integrate new tools than simply apply them separately. But the payoffs are immense.

“This is why systems thinking is the fifth discipline. It is the discipline that integrates the disciplines, fusing them into a coherent body of theory and practice. It keeps them from being separate gimmicks or the latest organization change fads. Without a systematic orientation, there is no motivation to look at how the disciplines interrelate. By enhancing each of the other disciplines, it continually reminds us that the whole can exceed the sum of the parts.

“For example, vision without systems thinking ends up painting lovely pictures of the future with no deep understanding of the forces that must be mastered to move from here to there.” (p. 12)

Saturday, September 4, 2010

Learning, Becoming, Doing

In any vocation we are called to do—and do it well—learning is foundational, and through a process of academic and experiential learning we can become highly proficient, perhaps even mastering our calling and in the process doing good in the world; yet, to sustain our excellence, the learning must be continual, for life.

And so it is for organizations, and the field of organizational development is one field wherein the search for the tools to ensure organizations become committed to lifetime learning, to become learning organizations, is constant.

A seminal book in the field is The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of the Learning Organization, and the description of one of the disciplines: personal mastery, is evocative.

An excerpt.

“Personal Mastery. Mastery might suggest gaining dominance over people or things. But mastery can also mean a special level of proficiency. A master craftsman doesn’t dominate pottery or weaving. People with a high level of personal mastery are able to consistently realize the results that matter most deeply to them—in effect, they approach their life as an artist would approach a work of art. They do that by becoming committed to their own lifelong learning.

“Personal mastery is the discipline of continually clarifying and deepening our personal vision, of focusing our energies, of developing patience, and of seeing reality objectively. As such, it is an essential cornerstone of the learning organization—the learning organization’s spiritual foundation. An organization’s commitment to and capacity for learning can be no greater than that of its members. The roots of this discipline lie in both Eastern and Western spiritual traditions, and in secular traditions as well.” (p. 7 in the 1994 edition, but the Amazon link is to the revised edition of 2006)

Friday, September 3, 2010

Sad Tale

A story from Minnesota concerning a nonprofit drug abuse program that has spiraled into some disarray, as reported by the Nonprofit Quarterly.

An excerpt.

“In Minnesota, the founder of an organization that serves ex-cons with substance abuse problems was escorted from the agency by the police at the board’s direction. Paul Kustermann became engaged in a struggle with his board of directors after a three-year period of intense growth.

“CTSI grew from a $112,000 a year program in 2007 to a budget of 655,000 in 2010. This article from the Star Tribune implies that a dispute emerged between the board and founder, Paul Kustermann. From the article: “Kustermann said he grew frustrated because he could not get the board to pass an operating budget or a strategic plan, he couldn't reach the board chairman and rarely saw members at organizational events. After a period of feeling estranged from the board, he invited a past board member, Dennis Parmenter, to establish a second board of directors.”

“The shadow board took it upon themselves to “fire” the first board which apparently did not agree with the decision or the shadow board’s right to make decisions at all; and somewhere in all of this, Kustermann was terminated and on the morning he was evicted from the premises both board presidents were present each claiming to be in charge.”

Thursday, September 2, 2010

Venture Philanthropy

Venture philanthropy grew out of the results-oriented philanthropy of those corporate leaders who became wealthy through technology, especially those from Silicon Valley, and wanted to see their charitable efforts actually effect social change.

This article from the Stanford Social Innovation Review is a nice case study of one such company’s efforts.

An excerpt.

“Before the dust settled from the 7.0 magnitude earthquake that hit Haiti in January, the search was on for accurate information. Which buildings were still standing? Where should responders look for trapped victims? How could displaced family members hope to find each other in all the chaos?

“While humanitarian agencies airlifted crews and supplies to the devastated island, engineers launched programming marathons. Within days, Google released a new online gadget to assist on-the-ground efforts. Embedded on high-traffic Web sites, including the U.S. Department of State home page, Google’s Person Finder allowed anyone to submit information or search an online database for details about the missing. Other Google tools were harnessed to help. Google Map Maker helped aid workers in Haiti’s capital, Port-au-Prince, navigate ruined streets. The company created a new Google Crisis Response Web page for Haiti to steer the public toward charitable giving opportunities, seeding the pot with a more than $1 million donation of its own.

“Google was not the only technology company that rallied to help Haiti. But by marshaling the brains, tools, and cash at its disposal, the Internet giant was demonstrating its special brand of corporate philanthropy. Google isn’t just interested in helping out the world; it aims to “engineer” for social benefit. “We want people to look at what we’re doing and say, ‘Wow, only Google could have done something like that,’” says Jacquelline Fuller, advocacy director for Google.org (or DotOrg), the company’s philanthropic initiative.

“When Google went public in 2004, founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin promised to unleash a Google-sized approach to doing good. In their letter to potential investors, they pledged “to contribute significant resources to the [Google] foundation, including employee time and approximately 1 percent of Google’s equity and profits in some form.”

“Giving away 1 percent of profits put the company “in line with the national average for corporate charitable donations,” says Lewis Solomon, a professor at George Washington University Law School and author of Tech Billionaires: Reshaping Philanthropy in a Quest for a Better World. Another 1 percent from equity brought the size of DotOrg to about $1 billion in 2005, with the potential to grow with the stock price—healthy seed funding for a philanthropy. As a final component of the strategy, the company committed an undefined amount of employee time to help solve global challenges.

“Google’s three-part approach is similar to the integrated philanthropy model developed a decade ago by Internet software company Salesforce.com Inc. Salesforce.com Foundation applies a 1/1/1 formula to social change, with 1 percent of staff time, 1 percent of equity, and 1 percent of profits going to advance the mission of qualified nonprofits.”

Wednesday, September 1, 2010

Raising Money for Nonprofits

It gets harder all the time and this article from The Business Review examines the current situation.

An excerpt.

“Gail Wilson-Giarratano prepares for a grilling when she asks for money for Girls Inc. of the Capital Region, a youth program for inner-city girls in Schenectady and Albany.

“Gone are the days when corporate donors wrote checks for the “nice” programs or the “cute” girls, said Wilson-Giarratano, the nonprofit’s CEO and its chief fundraiser.

“That doesn’t fly anymore. They want to see financials, business plans, sources of revenue. They want to know how you’re changing the communities in which you exist,” she said.

“The recession has left corporate donors with less money to give, and they are scrutinizing charitable requests with a keen eye. Now, more than ever, return on investment weighs heavily in determining who gets what.

“That element of improving the community is really elevated now. Donors want to know how sustainable and reliable you can be to have an impact. They want to know if their money’s at risk,” said Doug Sauer, CEO of the New York Council of Nonprofits in Albany, a 2,000-member trade group.

“Funders are scrutinizing how organizations manage their money—from programming costs to long-term investments—and most don’t want their contributions to replace government cuts.

“People want to know if you’ll be around,” Sauer said.

“Last year Wilson-Giarratano, along with Girl’s Inc.’s chief operating officer and its program specialist, prepared over several months to make a formal pitch for a grant from Time Warner Cable.

“In making the pitch, the three spent more than a half-hour showing an on-site video, answering questions about income sources and fundraising practices, detailing their programs and offering tangible proof that the girls are learning about technology, math and science, areas necessary to qualify for one of Time Warner’s annual “Connect a Million Minds” grants.

“Basically, it was like bidding for a job,” Wilson-Giarratano said.

“The presentation helped the nonprofit secure $15,000. Girls Inc. was one of only three or four local nonprofits to receive grant money from the broadcasting company.

“Stewart’s Foundation is sensitive to recent government cuts for charities, said Susan Dake, president of the foundation, the charitable arm of Stewart’s Shops Corp.

“As such, it will give short-term aid to nonprofits that lose government funds, provided they have a solid recovery plan.

“We need to make sure that the organization stays strong. You can give people a lot of money, but if they’re not strong you’re not doing them a favor,” Dake said.

“The foundation also considers a nonprofit’s other funding mechanisms before granting money, as having a limited number of supporters can be a red flag.

“Sometimes they may get a little desperate and ask us for the whole thing. We don’t want an organization to be dependent on a single donor,” Dake said.”