Thursday, November 3, 2011
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Social Entrepreneurship
It can—and perhaps already has—become somewhat of a trendy obsession, as this article from the Nonprofit Quarterly explains.
An excerpt.
“How to thrive in turbulent times, improve organizational sustainability, and generate significant social impact are crucial questions currently confronting many nonprofit leaders and boards. There appears to be an answer within reach, and its formula is as simple as it is powerful: you and your agency need to become more entrepreneurial.
“Over the last ten years, the fascination with and interest in social entrepreneurship seem to have grown exponentially. Today, this concept has positioned itself at the very heart of discussions about the future and evolution of the nonprofit sector, as a number of nonprofit executives have “embraced social entrepreneurship as a model of management.” There are several reasons behind this fast development, and I want to mention two in particular.
“First, despite the many constructive and positive impacts created by nonprofit organizations both locally and nationally, there exists a looming fear that our current efforts are not reaching far enough fast enough, and that traditional ways of addressing community needs and social issues lack the transformational capacity to deal with many of today’s complex and new social problems. In other words, the search is on for a new paradigm—a “game-changer”—based on fresh and different ways to create systemic change.
“Second, corresponding with this search for novel and innovative ways to deal with social issues, a new generation of philanthropists and institutional donors has been eager to promote the idea that the key to solving all sorts of pressing social predicaments is to be found in business principles and practices. As the story goes, the challenges and perceived inefficiencies of our current approach to social problems will, as Forbes.com described it, “ultimately be properly managed, or maybe even solved, when desperate governments and NGOs finally surrender their ideologies and tap the private sector for help.”
“Social entrepreneurship has united these two ideas to form a powerful fusion from which a new approach is indeed emerging, one that is backed by high-profile advocates like Bill Clinton and Nobel Peace Prize–winner Muhammad Yunus. The nonprofit literature has also noted that the means and tactics of social entrepreneurship and social enterprise “[are] being accorded a status of—if not quite a panacea—then at least a significantly important emergence in the societal management of key social needs.
“Despite the tremendous energy and excitement surrounding social entrepreneurship, many nonprofit practitioners find it a highly elusive and difficult topic. I believe that one of the fundamental reasons behind this elusiveness lies within the social entrepreneurship phenomenon itself. More specifically, in contrasting what is being said with what we know about this phenomenon, I have started to believe that in many aspects social entrepreneurship is a fetish, an object of desire—more important for what it symbolizes than for its substance and applicability to nonprofits. My purpose here, then, is to discuss some of these symbolic properties and illustrate what makes them powerful, but also what makes them problematic.
“Social Entrepreneurship as Dream Catcher
“What exactly does it take to be more (socially) entrepreneurial? Given the praise for the concept and the frequent calls for a more entrepreneurial nonprofit sector, one might think this basic and crucial question has an obvious answer, which is why it is almost ironic that one of the few areas of agreement in this field is that there is no agreement about how to define or operationalize social entrepreneurship. But rather than undermining its legitimacy, this lack of precision has only added to the mystique and power vested in the social entrepreneurship phenomenon. Absent any right or wrong way to conceptualize social entrepreneurship, it has transcended into a shape-shifter that can take on almost any form—or, as Humpty Dumpty formulated it: “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” This becomes evident when one considers the vast number of activities that all manage to fit under the social entrepreneurship conceptual umbrella, ranging from seemingly vague efforts to be more “creative,” “innovative,” and “bold” to more targeted strategies such as the application of business/market principles or the creation of earned income–generating programs. As a consequence, there is a huge smorgasbord of options and recommendations from which nonprofits can pick and choose.
“The obvious problem with this Humpty Dumpty aspect of social entrepreneurship is that a concept that means everything means nothing, and therefore has virtually no utility for practitioners.”
An excerpt.
“How to thrive in turbulent times, improve organizational sustainability, and generate significant social impact are crucial questions currently confronting many nonprofit leaders and boards. There appears to be an answer within reach, and its formula is as simple as it is powerful: you and your agency need to become more entrepreneurial.
“Over the last ten years, the fascination with and interest in social entrepreneurship seem to have grown exponentially. Today, this concept has positioned itself at the very heart of discussions about the future and evolution of the nonprofit sector, as a number of nonprofit executives have “embraced social entrepreneurship as a model of management.” There are several reasons behind this fast development, and I want to mention two in particular.
“First, despite the many constructive and positive impacts created by nonprofit organizations both locally and nationally, there exists a looming fear that our current efforts are not reaching far enough fast enough, and that traditional ways of addressing community needs and social issues lack the transformational capacity to deal with many of today’s complex and new social problems. In other words, the search is on for a new paradigm—a “game-changer”—based on fresh and different ways to create systemic change.
“Second, corresponding with this search for novel and innovative ways to deal with social issues, a new generation of philanthropists and institutional donors has been eager to promote the idea that the key to solving all sorts of pressing social predicaments is to be found in business principles and practices. As the story goes, the challenges and perceived inefficiencies of our current approach to social problems will, as Forbes.com described it, “ultimately be properly managed, or maybe even solved, when desperate governments and NGOs finally surrender their ideologies and tap the private sector for help.”
“Social entrepreneurship has united these two ideas to form a powerful fusion from which a new approach is indeed emerging, one that is backed by high-profile advocates like Bill Clinton and Nobel Peace Prize–winner Muhammad Yunus. The nonprofit literature has also noted that the means and tactics of social entrepreneurship and social enterprise “[are] being accorded a status of—if not quite a panacea—then at least a significantly important emergence in the societal management of key social needs.
“Despite the tremendous energy and excitement surrounding social entrepreneurship, many nonprofit practitioners find it a highly elusive and difficult topic. I believe that one of the fundamental reasons behind this elusiveness lies within the social entrepreneurship phenomenon itself. More specifically, in contrasting what is being said with what we know about this phenomenon, I have started to believe that in many aspects social entrepreneurship is a fetish, an object of desire—more important for what it symbolizes than for its substance and applicability to nonprofits. My purpose here, then, is to discuss some of these symbolic properties and illustrate what makes them powerful, but also what makes them problematic.
“Social Entrepreneurship as Dream Catcher
“What exactly does it take to be more (socially) entrepreneurial? Given the praise for the concept and the frequent calls for a more entrepreneurial nonprofit sector, one might think this basic and crucial question has an obvious answer, which is why it is almost ironic that one of the few areas of agreement in this field is that there is no agreement about how to define or operationalize social entrepreneurship. But rather than undermining its legitimacy, this lack of precision has only added to the mystique and power vested in the social entrepreneurship phenomenon. Absent any right or wrong way to conceptualize social entrepreneurship, it has transcended into a shape-shifter that can take on almost any form—or, as Humpty Dumpty formulated it: “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” This becomes evident when one considers the vast number of activities that all manage to fit under the social entrepreneurship conceptual umbrella, ranging from seemingly vague efforts to be more “creative,” “innovative,” and “bold” to more targeted strategies such as the application of business/market principles or the creation of earned income–generating programs. As a consequence, there is a huge smorgasbord of options and recommendations from which nonprofits can pick and choose.
“The obvious problem with this Humpty Dumpty aspect of social entrepreneurship is that a concept that means everything means nothing, and therefore has virtually no utility for practitioners.”
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Innovation
There are several books that influence both the nonprofit and forprofit sectors, providing valuable guidance to each and The Innovators Dilemma is one, noted for the impact it had on Steve Jobs in this article from Harvard Business Review.
An excerpt.
“In the lead up to today's release of the Steve Jobs biography, there's been an increasing stream of news surrounding its subject. As a business researcher, I was particularly interested in this recent article that referenced from his biography a list of Jobs's favorite books. There's one business book on this list, and it "deeply influenced" Jobs. That book is The Innovator's Dilemma by HBS Professor Clay Christensen.
“But what's most interesting to me isn't that The Innovator's Dilemma was on that list. It's that Jobs solved the conundrum.
“When describing his period of exile from Apple — when John Sculley took over — Steve Jobs described one fundamental root cause of Apple's problems. That was to let profitability outweigh passion: "My passion has been to build an enduring company where people were motivated to make great products. The products, not the profits, were the motivation. Sculley flipped these priorities to where the goal was to make money. It's a subtle difference, but it ends up meaning everything."
“Anyone familiar with Professor Christensen's work will quickly recognize the same causal mechanism at the heart of the Innovator's Dilemma: the pursuit of profit. The best professional managers — doing all the right things and following all the best advice — lead their companies all the way to the top of their markets in that pursuit... only to fall straight off the edge of a cliff after getting there.
“Which is exactly what had happened to Apple. A string of professional managers had led the company straight off the edge of that cliff. The fall had almost killed the company. It had 90 days working capital on hand when he took over — in other words, Apple was only three months away from bankruptcy.
“When he returned, Jobs completely upended the company. There were thousands of layoffs. Scores of products were killed stone dead. He knew the company had to make money to stay alive, but he transitioned the focus of Apple away from profits. Profit was viewed as necessary, but not sufficient, to justify everything Apple did. That attitude resulted in a company that looks entirely different to almost any other modern Fortune 500 company. One striking example: there's only one person Apple with responsibility for a profit and loss. The CFO. It's almost the opposite of what is taught in business school. An executive who worked at both Apple and Microsoft described the differences this way: "Microsoft tries to find pockets of unrealized revenue and then figures out what to make. Apple is just the opposite: It thinks of great products, then sells them. Prototypes and demos always come before spreadsheets."
“Similarly, Apple talks a lot about its great people. But make no mistake — they are there only in service of the mission. A headhunter describes it thus: "It is a happy place in that it has true believers. People join and stay because they believe in the mission of the company." It didn't matter how great you were, if you couldn't deliver to that mission — you were out.”
An excerpt.
“In the lead up to today's release of the Steve Jobs biography, there's been an increasing stream of news surrounding its subject. As a business researcher, I was particularly interested in this recent article that referenced from his biography a list of Jobs's favorite books. There's one business book on this list, and it "deeply influenced" Jobs. That book is The Innovator's Dilemma by HBS Professor Clay Christensen.
“But what's most interesting to me isn't that The Innovator's Dilemma was on that list. It's that Jobs solved the conundrum.
“When describing his period of exile from Apple — when John Sculley took over — Steve Jobs described one fundamental root cause of Apple's problems. That was to let profitability outweigh passion: "My passion has been to build an enduring company where people were motivated to make great products. The products, not the profits, were the motivation. Sculley flipped these priorities to where the goal was to make money. It's a subtle difference, but it ends up meaning everything."
“Anyone familiar with Professor Christensen's work will quickly recognize the same causal mechanism at the heart of the Innovator's Dilemma: the pursuit of profit. The best professional managers — doing all the right things and following all the best advice — lead their companies all the way to the top of their markets in that pursuit... only to fall straight off the edge of a cliff after getting there.
“Which is exactly what had happened to Apple. A string of professional managers had led the company straight off the edge of that cliff. The fall had almost killed the company. It had 90 days working capital on hand when he took over — in other words, Apple was only three months away from bankruptcy.
“When he returned, Jobs completely upended the company. There were thousands of layoffs. Scores of products were killed stone dead. He knew the company had to make money to stay alive, but he transitioned the focus of Apple away from profits. Profit was viewed as necessary, but not sufficient, to justify everything Apple did. That attitude resulted in a company that looks entirely different to almost any other modern Fortune 500 company. One striking example: there's only one person Apple with responsibility for a profit and loss. The CFO. It's almost the opposite of what is taught in business school. An executive who worked at both Apple and Microsoft described the differences this way: "Microsoft tries to find pockets of unrealized revenue and then figures out what to make. Apple is just the opposite: It thinks of great products, then sells them. Prototypes and demos always come before spreadsheets."
“Similarly, Apple talks a lot about its great people. But make no mistake — they are there only in service of the mission. A headhunter describes it thus: "It is a happy place in that it has true believers. People join and stay because they believe in the mission of the company." It didn't matter how great you were, if you couldn't deliver to that mission — you were out.”
Monday, October 31, 2011
Cause Marketing
It is a trend that even small grassroots nonprofits can become involved in, and this article from Nonprofit About.com is a good overview.
Even though I share the same skepticism about cause marketing as the article's author, for some nonprofits it is a natual fit and should be utilized.
An excerpt, with links at the jump.
“In what seems another life, I once taught a course about the history of American Consumerism. Although I tried not to turn the course into a rant about runaway consumerism and big business, I'm afraid it was pretty tough.
“As cause marketing came on the scene, I was cautious and reluctant, not sure anything good could come out of this "collusion" of cause and companies.
“However, if there was a battle to hold the line on cause marketing, it is clear that it has been lost. And maybe that is just as well. After all, if we want companies to be responsible (CSR), then it's hard not to accept cause marketing as part of the CSR mix.
“Plus, nonprofits and businesses have proved themselves to be very adept at blending marketing and causes. Causes have welcomed the promotional power that they otherwise would not have, and companies enjoy the "halo" affect for their products.
“What we reluctant cause shoppers can do is keep tabs on the trends, point out the differences between good cause marketing and bad, and push the field to more inclusiveness where small, local organizations have just as much of a shot at landing a business partner as do better branded, national nonprofits.
“Here are the trends that seem to dominate today's cause marketing scene:
“Trend #1: Growth
“The trend for cause marketing is definitely up and rosy. Cone Communications recently released the results of a global survey that found that consumers everywhere are on board:
• 81% of consumers around the world want companies to address key social and environmental issues; 93% say companies should go beyond just legal compliance to operate responsibly; and 94% expect companies to analyze and evolve their businesses to make their impact as positive as possible.”
Even though I share the same skepticism about cause marketing as the article's author, for some nonprofits it is a natual fit and should be utilized.
An excerpt, with links at the jump.
“In what seems another life, I once taught a course about the history of American Consumerism. Although I tried not to turn the course into a rant about runaway consumerism and big business, I'm afraid it was pretty tough.
“As cause marketing came on the scene, I was cautious and reluctant, not sure anything good could come out of this "collusion" of cause and companies.
“However, if there was a battle to hold the line on cause marketing, it is clear that it has been lost. And maybe that is just as well. After all, if we want companies to be responsible (CSR), then it's hard not to accept cause marketing as part of the CSR mix.
“Plus, nonprofits and businesses have proved themselves to be very adept at blending marketing and causes. Causes have welcomed the promotional power that they otherwise would not have, and companies enjoy the "halo" affect for their products.
“What we reluctant cause shoppers can do is keep tabs on the trends, point out the differences between good cause marketing and bad, and push the field to more inclusiveness where small, local organizations have just as much of a shot at landing a business partner as do better branded, national nonprofits.
“Here are the trends that seem to dominate today's cause marketing scene:
“Trend #1: Growth
“The trend for cause marketing is definitely up and rosy. Cone Communications recently released the results of a global survey that found that consumers everywhere are on board:
• 81% of consumers around the world want companies to address key social and environmental issues; 93% say companies should go beyond just legal compliance to operate responsibly; and 94% expect companies to analyze and evolve their businesses to make their impact as positive as possible.”
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Fundraising 2011
It has been a challenging period for nonprofit fundraising, so this article from Nonprofit About.com is a good overview of what some of the current research is telling us.
An excerpt, with links at the jump.
“I'm swearing off watching the stock market daily. I've decided to check in on my investments only once a month or so. I may even wait until the end of the year. That's because I'm getting a bad case of motion sickness watching the gyrations of the financial markets.
“Unfortunately, nonprofits can't ignore the fundraising tickers for their own organizations, nor for the sector as a whole. As dizzying as it sometimes seems, tracking the trends is part of the planning that must go on, whether it's for your end-of-year fundraising campaign, or looking out to 2012 and beyond.
“Over the past few weeks we've had a mountain of data come in via at least three surveys that leave us wondering what the trends really are.
“First up was the Nonprofit Research Collaborative's Nonprofit Report for Summer/Early Fall 2011. The Philanthropy Journal has a good summary of that survey, the upshot of which is that the fundraising climate is still tough.
“According to this survey, 44% of the nonprofits surveyed reported raising more in the first half of 2011, 20% raised less, and 25% raised the same amount. These figures are pretty close to the same figures for 2010, but are dramatically down from before the Great Recession.
“This week, the Chronicle of Philanthropy released an extensive survey of its Philanthropy 400. The list is made up of the 400 organizations that raise the most from private sources and are considered a bellwether for whence the sector goes. The Philanthropy 400 groups raise almost $1 of every $4 donated to charities in the US.
“The top 400 organizations did increase their donations by a median of 4.7% in 2011, much better than the 3.5% in 2010. However, that increase did not come close to overcoming the 11% decline they experienced in 2009. All in all, the report was pretty gloomy.”
An excerpt, with links at the jump.
“I'm swearing off watching the stock market daily. I've decided to check in on my investments only once a month or so. I may even wait until the end of the year. That's because I'm getting a bad case of motion sickness watching the gyrations of the financial markets.
“Unfortunately, nonprofits can't ignore the fundraising tickers for their own organizations, nor for the sector as a whole. As dizzying as it sometimes seems, tracking the trends is part of the planning that must go on, whether it's for your end-of-year fundraising campaign, or looking out to 2012 and beyond.
“Over the past few weeks we've had a mountain of data come in via at least three surveys that leave us wondering what the trends really are.
“First up was the Nonprofit Research Collaborative's Nonprofit Report for Summer/Early Fall 2011. The Philanthropy Journal has a good summary of that survey, the upshot of which is that the fundraising climate is still tough.
“According to this survey, 44% of the nonprofits surveyed reported raising more in the first half of 2011, 20% raised less, and 25% raised the same amount. These figures are pretty close to the same figures for 2010, but are dramatically down from before the Great Recession.
“This week, the Chronicle of Philanthropy released an extensive survey of its Philanthropy 400. The list is made up of the 400 organizations that raise the most from private sources and are considered a bellwether for whence the sector goes. The Philanthropy 400 groups raise almost $1 of every $4 donated to charities in the US.
“The top 400 organizations did increase their donations by a median of 4.7% in 2011, much better than the 3.5% in 2010. However, that increase did not come close to overcoming the 11% decline they experienced in 2009. All in all, the report was pretty gloomy.”
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Book Review. Giving 2.0
This is a petty good review of a new book, Giving 2.0: Transform Your Giving and Our World, by Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen, which makes it sound worth a read and I have ordered it so will let you know what I think after I get a chance to take a look at it.
The review is from Nonprofit About.com.
An excerpt.
“Laura is well positioned to overview the current state of charitable giving and has played many roles within it...from founding a nonprofit to setting up family foundations to volunteering and meeting a wide range of givers, industry insiders, and social ventureneers of all types.
“Laura also understands the hearts of charitable people, no matter what their resources, pedigree, age, or position on the economic ladder. We all want the same things...to help, to make a difference, to bequeath a better world to our children.
“What I liked especially about Laura's book is that it fully engages with the web 2.0 world. It's hard to remember that this new world of online everything is only about a dozen years old. Yes, we were finding our way around it, in what now seem like unbelievably awkward ways, back in the 90s (remember paying by the minute to access the web through AOL?), but the online world as we now glide around it is relatively new.
“As the web has blossomed, so has the charitable world. Now nonprofits almost always have websites, and the number of giving "gateways" has grown to dozens from just a few only recently. It can be confusing for all of us, even as we love the variety and multitude of opportunities to give back.
“Laura takes all of that into account, addressing both traditional ways of planning and executing one's charitable giving and also how to do so using the tools of the online world.”
The review is from Nonprofit About.com.
An excerpt.
“Laura is well positioned to overview the current state of charitable giving and has played many roles within it...from founding a nonprofit to setting up family foundations to volunteering and meeting a wide range of givers, industry insiders, and social ventureneers of all types.
“Laura also understands the hearts of charitable people, no matter what their resources, pedigree, age, or position on the economic ladder. We all want the same things...to help, to make a difference, to bequeath a better world to our children.
“What I liked especially about Laura's book is that it fully engages with the web 2.0 world. It's hard to remember that this new world of online everything is only about a dozen years old. Yes, we were finding our way around it, in what now seem like unbelievably awkward ways, back in the 90s (remember paying by the minute to access the web through AOL?), but the online world as we now glide around it is relatively new.
“As the web has blossomed, so has the charitable world. Now nonprofits almost always have websites, and the number of giving "gateways" has grown to dozens from just a few only recently. It can be confusing for all of us, even as we love the variety and multitude of opportunities to give back.
“Laura takes all of that into account, addressing both traditional ways of planning and executing one's charitable giving and also how to do so using the tools of the online world.”
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Peter Senge’s Work
I first encountered his works through his magisterial book, The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of The Learning Organization, and recently purchased the 2006 revised edition, along with his 2008 book, The Necessary Revolution: How Individuals And Organizations Are Working Together to Create a Sustainable World, and my admiration for his work continues to grow.
If you are a nonprofit leader who has been exploring the discipline of organizational development—and if you aren’t, you should be—then he is one thinker whose work you should become familiar with; and for a wonderful conversation between two truly great organizational thinkers, I suggest getting a copy of Leading in a Time of Change: A Conversation with Peter F. Drucker & Peter M. Senge.
From Senge’s 2008 book, an excerpt:
“three guiding ideas [that] stand out as essential for creating a more sustainable future.”
1. There is no viable path forward that does not take into account the needs of future generations. The term sustainability is widely used to express the need to live in the present in ways that do not jeopardize the future….
2. Institutions matter. Today’s world is shaped not by individuals alone, but by the networks of businesses and governmental and nongovernmental institutions that influence the products we make, the food we eat, the energy we use, and our responses to problems that arise from those systems…
3. All real change is grounded in new ways of thinking and perceiving. As Einstein said: “We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”… (pp. 9-10)
If you are a nonprofit leader who has been exploring the discipline of organizational development—and if you aren’t, you should be—then he is one thinker whose work you should become familiar with; and for a wonderful conversation between two truly great organizational thinkers, I suggest getting a copy of Leading in a Time of Change: A Conversation with Peter F. Drucker & Peter M. Senge.
From Senge’s 2008 book, an excerpt:
“three guiding ideas [that] stand out as essential for creating a more sustainable future.”
1. There is no viable path forward that does not take into account the needs of future generations. The term sustainability is widely used to express the need to live in the present in ways that do not jeopardize the future….
2. Institutions matter. Today’s world is shaped not by individuals alone, but by the networks of businesses and governmental and nongovernmental institutions that influence the products we make, the food we eat, the energy we use, and our responses to problems that arise from those systems…
3. All real change is grounded in new ways of thinking and perceiving. As Einstein said: “We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”… (pp. 9-10)
Monday, October 24, 2011
Principles & Compassion
A perplexing situation that has been obvious for generations is how some of the largest foundations begun with money from compassionate American capitalists have morphed into some of the most virulent opposition against capitalism and America.
Fortunately, every so often, principles arise (Bravo Goldman Sachs) as this story from the Wall Street Journal reports.
An excerpt.
“Earlier this month, hundreds of New Yorkers received an unusual dinner invitation from the Lower East Side People's Federal Credit Union.
“The Credit Union, a small lender serving New York's poor, was holding a fund-raiser to celebrate its 25th anniversary. Among the chief sponsors listed on the invitation was Goldman Sachs Group Inc.
“Among the honorees: "Occupy Wall Street."
“They might as well have asked Marie Antoinette to dig into her purse to support Madame Defarge's knitting business.
“Shortly after the invitation was sent out, Goldman withdrew its name from the dinner. It also pulled the plug on its $5,000 funding pledge.
“The debate that ensued—between bankers and nonprofit chiefs, philanthropists and financiers—turned a modest fund-raising dinner into a heated battleground between Wall Street and the Occupy protestors, exposing contradictions on both sides.
“On one side was Goldman Sachs, which told the credit union it didn't want its name or money used to celebrate a protest movement known for placards like "Goldman Sachs is the work of the devil," dinner organizers said. The investment bank's giant glass-and-steel headquarters tower is just blocks away from the protest headquarters in Manhattan's Zuccotti Park.
“On the other side of the debate were several hosts and board members of the credit union, who said honoring the protesters is more important than the money from Goldman—even though the funds were slated to cover a quarter of the dinner's $20,000 cost.
"Their money was welcome, but not at the price of giving up what we believe in," said Pablo DeFilippi, one of the dinner hosts and associate director of member development at the National Federal of Community Development Credit Unions. "We lost their $5,000, but we have our principles."
Fortunately, every so often, principles arise (Bravo Goldman Sachs) as this story from the Wall Street Journal reports.
An excerpt.
“Earlier this month, hundreds of New Yorkers received an unusual dinner invitation from the Lower East Side People's Federal Credit Union.
“The Credit Union, a small lender serving New York's poor, was holding a fund-raiser to celebrate its 25th anniversary. Among the chief sponsors listed on the invitation was Goldman Sachs Group Inc.
“Among the honorees: "Occupy Wall Street."
“They might as well have asked Marie Antoinette to dig into her purse to support Madame Defarge's knitting business.
“Shortly after the invitation was sent out, Goldman withdrew its name from the dinner. It also pulled the plug on its $5,000 funding pledge.
“The debate that ensued—between bankers and nonprofit chiefs, philanthropists and financiers—turned a modest fund-raising dinner into a heated battleground between Wall Street and the Occupy protestors, exposing contradictions on both sides.
“On one side was Goldman Sachs, which told the credit union it didn't want its name or money used to celebrate a protest movement known for placards like "Goldman Sachs is the work of the devil," dinner organizers said. The investment bank's giant glass-and-steel headquarters tower is just blocks away from the protest headquarters in Manhattan's Zuccotti Park.
“On the other side of the debate were several hosts and board members of the credit union, who said honoring the protesters is more important than the money from Goldman—even though the funds were slated to cover a quarter of the dinner's $20,000 cost.
"Their money was welcome, but not at the price of giving up what we believe in," said Pablo DeFilippi, one of the dinner hosts and associate director of member development at the National Federal of Community Development Credit Unions. "We lost their $5,000, but we have our principles."
Friday, October 21, 2011
Hybrid Nonprofits
An excellent article from Harvard Business Weekly about the challenges they face in fulfilling their mission.
An excerpt.
“For those who like to view things in black and white, it's tempting to divide the working world into two camps. There is the for-profit sector, primarily driven by the prospect of financial success. And then there's the not-for-profit world, which eschews the almighty dollar in the pursuit of curing societal ills. In reality, though, the line between the two is growing blurrier.
"In the not-for-profit sector, a number of organizations are trying to be less dependent on donations and grants," says Julie Battilana, an associate professor at Harvard Business School. "In the meantime, facing increased public pressure to help address societal problems, for-profit firms have adopted social responsibility policies, which have pushed them to focus more on social initiatives."
"Some of them have been accused of losing sight of their social mission, or even having a negative impact on the populations they were trying to help"
“In the wake of this evolution over the past decade, more organizations have adopted a hybrid business model in which a social mission is the primary goal, but they still aim to generate enough commercial revenue so they can survive and thrive without depending on charitable donations like a typical nonprofit would. Commercial microfinance organizations often adopt a hybrid model, for example: they provide business loans to poor people who wouldn't traditionally qualify, but they still depend on the loan recipients paying them back with interest.
“The main problem with the model is that hybrid organizations run the risk of suffering from so-called mission drift—meaning that they stray from their original goals—usually by focusing on profits to the detriment of the social good, but sometimes vice versa.
"Mission drift has been identified as a potential problem among microfinance organizations," says Battilana, who has been studying hybrid organizations for several years. "Some of them have been accused of losing sight of their social mission, or even having a negative impact on the populations they were trying to help."
“According to Battilana, there are two key questions that leaders must address to keep the mission on course while still making enough money to sustain that mission: One, whom should you hire to strike a healthy balance between idealism and the bottom line? And two, what's the best way to socialize new hires to stay focused?”
An excerpt.
“For those who like to view things in black and white, it's tempting to divide the working world into two camps. There is the for-profit sector, primarily driven by the prospect of financial success. And then there's the not-for-profit world, which eschews the almighty dollar in the pursuit of curing societal ills. In reality, though, the line between the two is growing blurrier.
"In the not-for-profit sector, a number of organizations are trying to be less dependent on donations and grants," says Julie Battilana, an associate professor at Harvard Business School. "In the meantime, facing increased public pressure to help address societal problems, for-profit firms have adopted social responsibility policies, which have pushed them to focus more on social initiatives."
"Some of them have been accused of losing sight of their social mission, or even having a negative impact on the populations they were trying to help"
“In the wake of this evolution over the past decade, more organizations have adopted a hybrid business model in which a social mission is the primary goal, but they still aim to generate enough commercial revenue so they can survive and thrive without depending on charitable donations like a typical nonprofit would. Commercial microfinance organizations often adopt a hybrid model, for example: they provide business loans to poor people who wouldn't traditionally qualify, but they still depend on the loan recipients paying them back with interest.
“The main problem with the model is that hybrid organizations run the risk of suffering from so-called mission drift—meaning that they stray from their original goals—usually by focusing on profits to the detriment of the social good, but sometimes vice versa.
"Mission drift has been identified as a potential problem among microfinance organizations," says Battilana, who has been studying hybrid organizations for several years. "Some of them have been accused of losing sight of their social mission, or even having a negative impact on the populations they were trying to help."
“According to Battilana, there are two key questions that leaders must address to keep the mission on course while still making enough money to sustain that mission: One, whom should you hire to strike a healthy balance between idealism and the bottom line? And two, what's the best way to socialize new hires to stay focused?”
Thursday, October 20, 2011
The Learning Organization
Becoming one is a key attribute of success, whether forprofit or nonprofit and the leading thinker in this field is Peter Senge, whose magisterial, The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of the Learning Organization, is the one book you need to have in your library.
This article from Stanford Social Innovation Review examines the difficulties involved in actually becoming a learning organization.
An excerpt.
“Reinventing the wheel—this well-worn phrase describes one of the oldest of human follies: undertaking a project or activity without tapping into the knowledge that already exists within a culture or community. Individuals are blessed with a brain that, some of the time, remembers what we’ve already learned—or at least that we’ve learned something. But what about organizations?
“Consider the views of Kim Oakes, director of sharing and communities of practice at the Knowledge Is Power Program (KIPP), a national network of 99 charter schools serving 27,000 students via 1,900 teachers. Oakes told Bridgespan’s research team: “We know that about 80 percent of our teachers create materials from scratch. … It became increasingly important to connect our teachers, so that they could build upon one another’s ideas rather than work in isolation.”
“Or consider World Vision, an international Christian development organization with an annual budget of more than $2 billion operating in 93 countries. World Vision was facing the consequences of rapid growth. In the words of Eleanor Monbiot, its senior director for knowledge management: “We were growing at 10 to 15 percent a year. We had moved from everybody knowing each other vaguely, to a breaking point. … The No. 1 need was to know what people were up to, where the best practices lay.”
“KIPP, World Vision, and a host of other nonprofits, large and small, are tackling the challenge of making their organizations as smart as the individuals who constitute them. In short, they are engaging in the hard work of organizational learning: The intentional practice of collecting information, reflecting on it, and sharing the findings, to improve the performance of an organization.
“Authors ranging from the late business historian Alfred D. Chandler Jr. to MIT Sloan School of Management senior lecturer Peter Senge have emphasized the value of knowledge and learning inside organizations. But, to use another well-worn phrase, this is easier said than done. In the fall of 2010, a Bridgespan Group team surveyed 116 nonprofits about how they learn—and how they translate the knowledge gained into practice, to increase their impact and fulfill their missions. We then explored these topics through interviews with more than half a dozen organizations, which were recommended by their peers for their innovative approaches to learning.
“The results of the survey indicate that nonprofit leaders care deeply about capturing and sharing knowledge across their programs and fields. But they also identify three significant impediments to organizational learning: a lack of clear and measurable goals about using knowledge to improve performance; insufficient incentives for individuals or teams to participate in organizational learning activities; and uncertainty about the most effective processes for capturing and sharing learning. These issues also surface in forprofit organizations, according to outside studies, where knowledge hoarding between business units can result from competition for resources. In the nonprofit sector, however, 97 percent of survey respondents said their leaders value knowledge sharing as a means to achieve their missions. Still, many of them struggle to do it well.”
This article from Stanford Social Innovation Review examines the difficulties involved in actually becoming a learning organization.
An excerpt.
“Reinventing the wheel—this well-worn phrase describes one of the oldest of human follies: undertaking a project or activity without tapping into the knowledge that already exists within a culture or community. Individuals are blessed with a brain that, some of the time, remembers what we’ve already learned—or at least that we’ve learned something. But what about organizations?
“Consider the views of Kim Oakes, director of sharing and communities of practice at the Knowledge Is Power Program (KIPP), a national network of 99 charter schools serving 27,000 students via 1,900 teachers. Oakes told Bridgespan’s research team: “We know that about 80 percent of our teachers create materials from scratch. … It became increasingly important to connect our teachers, so that they could build upon one another’s ideas rather than work in isolation.”
“Or consider World Vision, an international Christian development organization with an annual budget of more than $2 billion operating in 93 countries. World Vision was facing the consequences of rapid growth. In the words of Eleanor Monbiot, its senior director for knowledge management: “We were growing at 10 to 15 percent a year. We had moved from everybody knowing each other vaguely, to a breaking point. … The No. 1 need was to know what people were up to, where the best practices lay.”
“KIPP, World Vision, and a host of other nonprofits, large and small, are tackling the challenge of making their organizations as smart as the individuals who constitute them. In short, they are engaging in the hard work of organizational learning: The intentional practice of collecting information, reflecting on it, and sharing the findings, to improve the performance of an organization.
“Authors ranging from the late business historian Alfred D. Chandler Jr. to MIT Sloan School of Management senior lecturer Peter Senge have emphasized the value of knowledge and learning inside organizations. But, to use another well-worn phrase, this is easier said than done. In the fall of 2010, a Bridgespan Group team surveyed 116 nonprofits about how they learn—and how they translate the knowledge gained into practice, to increase their impact and fulfill their missions. We then explored these topics through interviews with more than half a dozen organizations, which were recommended by their peers for their innovative approaches to learning.
“The results of the survey indicate that nonprofit leaders care deeply about capturing and sharing knowledge across their programs and fields. But they also identify three significant impediments to organizational learning: a lack of clear and measurable goals about using knowledge to improve performance; insufficient incentives for individuals or teams to participate in organizational learning activities; and uncertainty about the most effective processes for capturing and sharing learning. These issues also surface in forprofit organizations, according to outside studies, where knowledge hoarding between business units can result from competition for resources. In the nonprofit sector, however, 97 percent of survey respondents said their leaders value knowledge sharing as a means to achieve their missions. Still, many of them struggle to do it well.”
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Nonprofit Voters
An interesting article from Blue Avocado about the results of a voting survey of nonprofit employees.
An excerpt.
“In a survey of 560 staff at health and human service nonprofits, a remarkable 100% of senior managers and 92% of "line staff" (non-senior managers) are registered to vote. Wow! And . . .
• Nonprofit staff are 49% more likely to be registered than the general population.
• Nonprofit staff were 21% more likely to vote than the general population (in the 2010 election for governor).
“Letting candidates know that nonprofit staff vote
“SVCN is presenting these findings to the county board of supervisors and to city councils, to show that nonprofit staff are voters. "You'll hear even more from us right before the November election!" vows executive director Patricia Gardner.
“Nonprofit staff volunteer more, too
"Not only do we work in the nonprofit sector," Patricia says, "but we volunteer in the sector -- everyone is doing it!" In fact, 90% of senior managers and 72% of other staff volunteer in the community.”
"We know we [nonprofit staff] put in extra time where we work, but we're also volunteering elsewhere," says Patricia. "Our sector leaders are actively engaged in the community in many ways."
An excerpt.
“In a survey of 560 staff at health and human service nonprofits, a remarkable 100% of senior managers and 92% of "line staff" (non-senior managers) are registered to vote. Wow! And . . .
• Nonprofit staff are 49% more likely to be registered than the general population.
• Nonprofit staff were 21% more likely to vote than the general population (in the 2010 election for governor).
“Letting candidates know that nonprofit staff vote
“SVCN is presenting these findings to the county board of supervisors and to city councils, to show that nonprofit staff are voters. "You'll hear even more from us right before the November election!" vows executive director Patricia Gardner.
“Nonprofit staff volunteer more, too
"Not only do we work in the nonprofit sector," Patricia says, "but we volunteer in the sector -- everyone is doing it!" In fact, 90% of senior managers and 72% of other staff volunteer in the community.”
"We know we [nonprofit staff] put in extra time where we work, but we're also volunteering elsewhere," says Patricia. "Our sector leaders are actively engaged in the community in many ways."
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Congruence, Alignment
Both mean about the same and both are becoming much more crucial in an era of shrinking funds for nonprofits, both from government sources and from private philanthropists.
They are also core elements of my consultancy practice.
This article from Harvard Business Review, which uses the term coherence, also meaning about the same, takes note.
An excerpt.
“There is a crisis in the not-for-profit sector. Since the great recession began, donations to the largest charities in the U.S. have dropped by billions — down 11% in 2010 alone, according to a recent report from the Chronicle of Philanthropy. This was the worst decline since the Chronicle began ranking its "Philanthropy 400" list of America's largest fund-raising charities in 1990. Leaders of philanthropic and other non-profit organizations naturally blame the economy for this problem; and many expect things to get worse as the economic malaise drags on.
“But the financial meltdown has not affected all charities and not-for-profits equally. It is the more versatile, general-purpose charities — including such well-known, diverse institutions as The United Way Worldwide and the Salvation Army — that are faring the worst. For more tightly focused not-for-profits, such as the Cleveland Clinic and the network of Food Banks around the country, the decline is not nearly as sharp.
“Why the disparity? Our own research on organizational strategy and leadership more broadly suggests a reason. Since 2010, we've been conducting an ongoing survey of managers' attitudes about the strategies of their organizations (click here to take the not-for-profit version of the profiler). More than 65% of the respondents from the non-profit sector said it was a significant challenge to bring day-to-day decisions in line with their organization's overall strategy. When asked about their frustration factors, 76% (the largest group by far, and a larger percentage than their for-profit counterparts) named "too many conflicting priorities." When asked about their organization's core capabilities — distinctive things their association could do better than anyone else — only 29% said these supported their organization's strategy, and almost 80% said that their association's efforts to grow had led to waste.
“All of these results suggest that, while the hit to fundraising has hurt many not-for-profits, the more fundamental core problem is strategic. These institutions lack a strategy for connecting their mission with their ability to deliver. In short, this is a crisis of coherence.
“Coherence is a fundamental alignment among the elements that create value in an organization. A coherent not-for-profit has three core strategic elements fitting seamlessly together. First, there is a well-defined "way to play," a distinctive way of achieving the organization's mission — thus making a difference in a way that would otherwise go unfulfilled. Second, the organization backs up its mission with a system of interrelated capabilities: a combination of processes, tools, knowledge, skills, and organization, all focused on reliably and consistently delivering what is needed to create value according to that way to play. Third, all its activities relate to this strategic mix; if it doesn't have the capabilities to perform some service, in a way that fits with its overall strategy, then it leaves that to a different organization.”
They are also core elements of my consultancy practice.
This article from Harvard Business Review, which uses the term coherence, also meaning about the same, takes note.
An excerpt.
“There is a crisis in the not-for-profit sector. Since the great recession began, donations to the largest charities in the U.S. have dropped by billions — down 11% in 2010 alone, according to a recent report from the Chronicle of Philanthropy. This was the worst decline since the Chronicle began ranking its "Philanthropy 400" list of America's largest fund-raising charities in 1990. Leaders of philanthropic and other non-profit organizations naturally blame the economy for this problem; and many expect things to get worse as the economic malaise drags on.
“But the financial meltdown has not affected all charities and not-for-profits equally. It is the more versatile, general-purpose charities — including such well-known, diverse institutions as The United Way Worldwide and the Salvation Army — that are faring the worst. For more tightly focused not-for-profits, such as the Cleveland Clinic and the network of Food Banks around the country, the decline is not nearly as sharp.
“Why the disparity? Our own research on organizational strategy and leadership more broadly suggests a reason. Since 2010, we've been conducting an ongoing survey of managers' attitudes about the strategies of their organizations (click here to take the not-for-profit version of the profiler). More than 65% of the respondents from the non-profit sector said it was a significant challenge to bring day-to-day decisions in line with their organization's overall strategy. When asked about their frustration factors, 76% (the largest group by far, and a larger percentage than their for-profit counterparts) named "too many conflicting priorities." When asked about their organization's core capabilities — distinctive things their association could do better than anyone else — only 29% said these supported their organization's strategy, and almost 80% said that their association's efforts to grow had led to waste.
“All of these results suggest that, while the hit to fundraising has hurt many not-for-profits, the more fundamental core problem is strategic. These institutions lack a strategy for connecting their mission with their ability to deliver. In short, this is a crisis of coherence.
“Coherence is a fundamental alignment among the elements that create value in an organization. A coherent not-for-profit has three core strategic elements fitting seamlessly together. First, there is a well-defined "way to play," a distinctive way of achieving the organization's mission — thus making a difference in a way that would otherwise go unfulfilled. Second, the organization backs up its mission with a system of interrelated capabilities: a combination of processes, tools, knowledge, skills, and organization, all focused on reliably and consistently delivering what is needed to create value according to that way to play. Third, all its activities relate to this strategic mix; if it doesn't have the capabilities to perform some service, in a way that fits with its overall strategy, then it leaves that to a different organization.”
Monday, October 17, 2011
Creative Disruption
A good story on the difficulties and opportunities facing the nonprofit human service sector from the Chronicle of Philanthropy.
An excerpt, with links at the jump.
“With a bigger share of America’s population reaching old age and growing more diverse, social-service organizations are in for some big changes in the not-too-distant future. Adding to the challenge: the turbulence in government and private financing.
“For the past six months, the Alliance for Children and Families—a membership group for human-service charities—has interviewed nonprofit leaders, gathered focus groups, and conducted surveys to identify the emerging trends organizations must embrace to succeed.
“Today the alliance has published its findings in a new report, “Disruptive Forces: Driving a Human Services Revolution.”
“Sparking Conversation
“Some of the six trends detailed in the report will sound familiar, such as the need for nonprofits to demonstrate to potential donors the results of their programs as well as the emergence of new types of financing that combine social and financial returns.
“But the report also includes some provocative observations that are likely to spur debate. For example, when discussing “information liberation,” which refers to the fact that a new generation of consumers is more likely to share information about themselves, it’s clear that the report’s authors disapprove of social-service groups’ approach to handling client information.
“The human-services sector has used ‘privacy’ and ‘confidentiality’ as an excuse to avoid developments that promote information sharing,” they write. “Information sharing can improve service-delivery models such that they ultimately give consumers more control over how their information is shared and allow other agencies in the same continuum to provide better care.”
“The report calls on organizations to integrate advances in science and technology into their work and suggests that brain scanning might be one way for charities to demonstrate the effectiveness of their programs.
“Boards will find themselves challenged by the ethical tension between high-tech and high-touch approaches,” the authors write.
“Other forces cited in the report that require nonprofits to act: growing competition that requires a willingness to take risks on innovative projects, plus a focus on “branding causes, not charities,” to persuade donors to focus on the issue, not on a particular group.”
An excerpt, with links at the jump.
“With a bigger share of America’s population reaching old age and growing more diverse, social-service organizations are in for some big changes in the not-too-distant future. Adding to the challenge: the turbulence in government and private financing.
“For the past six months, the Alliance for Children and Families—a membership group for human-service charities—has interviewed nonprofit leaders, gathered focus groups, and conducted surveys to identify the emerging trends organizations must embrace to succeed.
“Today the alliance has published its findings in a new report, “Disruptive Forces: Driving a Human Services Revolution.”
“Sparking Conversation
“Some of the six trends detailed in the report will sound familiar, such as the need for nonprofits to demonstrate to potential donors the results of their programs as well as the emergence of new types of financing that combine social and financial returns.
“But the report also includes some provocative observations that are likely to spur debate. For example, when discussing “information liberation,” which refers to the fact that a new generation of consumers is more likely to share information about themselves, it’s clear that the report’s authors disapprove of social-service groups’ approach to handling client information.
“The human-services sector has used ‘privacy’ and ‘confidentiality’ as an excuse to avoid developments that promote information sharing,” they write. “Information sharing can improve service-delivery models such that they ultimately give consumers more control over how their information is shared and allow other agencies in the same continuum to provide better care.”
“The report calls on organizations to integrate advances in science and technology into their work and suggests that brain scanning might be one way for charities to demonstrate the effectiveness of their programs.
“Boards will find themselves challenged by the ethical tension between high-tech and high-touch approaches,” the authors write.
“Other forces cited in the report that require nonprofits to act: growing competition that requires a willingness to take risks on innovative projects, plus a focus on “branding causes, not charities,” to persuade donors to focus on the issue, not on a particular group.”
Friday, October 14, 2011
New Corporate Form
As the concepts of social enterprise and venture capitalism influenced business thinking over the past several years, the formation of new forms of doing business have emerged; witness the flexible-purpose corporation in California, as reported by the New York Times.
An excerpt.
“A new type of company intended to put social goals ahead of making profits is taking root around the country, as more states adopt laws to bridge the divide between nonprofits and businesses.
“California is the latest state to adopt a statute permitting what is called flexible-purpose corporations, new companies that are part social benefit and part low-profit entities. The companies are now allowed under laws in more than a dozen states and two Indian tribes.
“States like New York and Massachusetts are weighing comparable legislation — sometimes also known as low-profit limited liability or benefit corporations — and efforts are afoot to get federal legislation passed that would lower hurdles to the creation of such companies, including a quiet push to get preferential tax treatment for them.
“Many of the companies adopting the new structures provide services to nonprofits or are food purveyors that, for example, might employ the disabled. Perhaps the best known is MOO Milk of Vermont, a group of small dairy farmers.
“Unlike a straight nonprofit group, these businesses can tap into conventional capital markets as well as philanthropy.
“And unlike a for-profit corporation, the structure allows investors to emphasize the social mission over making money, and to be supported by money from foundations.
“Directors of many companies want to do the right thing, but they’re so busy looking at how not to get sued for failing to maximize profits that they don’t think more aspirationally about creating a great company that helps the planet and people and also makes money,” said R. Todd Johnson, a lawyer who is among the leaders of the movement to get states to create new legal structures.
“Not surprisingly, the trend concerns some executives in charge of charities, who fear increased competition for philanthropic dollars fueled by the enthusiasm for the new formats among foundations, many of which have been lobbying hard for new laws to foster this type of business.”
An excerpt.
“A new type of company intended to put social goals ahead of making profits is taking root around the country, as more states adopt laws to bridge the divide between nonprofits and businesses.
“California is the latest state to adopt a statute permitting what is called flexible-purpose corporations, new companies that are part social benefit and part low-profit entities. The companies are now allowed under laws in more than a dozen states and two Indian tribes.
“States like New York and Massachusetts are weighing comparable legislation — sometimes also known as low-profit limited liability or benefit corporations — and efforts are afoot to get federal legislation passed that would lower hurdles to the creation of such companies, including a quiet push to get preferential tax treatment for them.
“Many of the companies adopting the new structures provide services to nonprofits or are food purveyors that, for example, might employ the disabled. Perhaps the best known is MOO Milk of Vermont, a group of small dairy farmers.
“Unlike a straight nonprofit group, these businesses can tap into conventional capital markets as well as philanthropy.
“And unlike a for-profit corporation, the structure allows investors to emphasize the social mission over making money, and to be supported by money from foundations.
“Directors of many companies want to do the right thing, but they’re so busy looking at how not to get sued for failing to maximize profits that they don’t think more aspirationally about creating a great company that helps the planet and people and also makes money,” said R. Todd Johnson, a lawyer who is among the leaders of the movement to get states to create new legal structures.
“Not surprisingly, the trend concerns some executives in charge of charities, who fear increased competition for philanthropic dollars fueled by the enthusiasm for the new formats among foundations, many of which have been lobbying hard for new laws to foster this type of business.”
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Nonprofit Job Growth
In what should not be a surprise to anyone, this story from the Nonprofit Chamber of Service reports it only grew by 1% in 2010.
An excerpt.
“The growth in nonprofit jobs slowed in 2010 compared with other recent years, according to a new analysis of U.S. labor statistics.
“The number of nonprofit jobs grew by just under 1 percent from 2009 to 2010, according to a study of figures in 45 states by the Johns Hopkins University’s Center for Civil Society Studies, in Baltimore. Year-to-year nonprofit job totals increased by 1.2 percent in 2009 and 2.6 percent in 2008.
“However, nonprofits fared better in 2010 than for-profit companies, which saw a 0.9 percent decrease in jobs last year.
“Among specific fields, education added the most jobs in recent years, at a rate of 1.9 percent from 2007 to 2010, followed by professional services and arts, each at 1.8 percent. Health-related jobs grew by 1.6 percent, and social services by 1.5 percent. Civic groups saw a 0.5-percent drop in jobs during that three-year period, according to the report.
“Other key findings show that half of all nonprofit jobs are health-related, 13 percent are in education, and 11 percent in social services.”
An excerpt.
“The growth in nonprofit jobs slowed in 2010 compared with other recent years, according to a new analysis of U.S. labor statistics.
“The number of nonprofit jobs grew by just under 1 percent from 2009 to 2010, according to a study of figures in 45 states by the Johns Hopkins University’s Center for Civil Society Studies, in Baltimore. Year-to-year nonprofit job totals increased by 1.2 percent in 2009 and 2.6 percent in 2008.
“However, nonprofits fared better in 2010 than for-profit companies, which saw a 0.9 percent decrease in jobs last year.
“Among specific fields, education added the most jobs in recent years, at a rate of 1.9 percent from 2007 to 2010, followed by professional services and arts, each at 1.8 percent. Health-related jobs grew by 1.6 percent, and social services by 1.5 percent. Civic groups saw a 0.5-percent drop in jobs during that three-year period, according to the report.
“Other key findings show that half of all nonprofit jobs are health-related, 13 percent are in education, and 11 percent in social services.”
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Donor Service
This article from Nonprofit About.com begins with the too often practice of not thanking donors, something that should be done immediately regardless of how the donation came.
From my perspective, if an organization does not thank donors immediately and well, they virtually negate their foundational mission, within which their organizational mission is embedded, of community service.
An excerpt from the article.
“A friend donated a considerable amount of money through payroll deduction to her local public radio station. For that amount, she was supposed to receive a thermos with the station's logo on it.
“When she didn't receive the gift nor any kind of thank you from the station, she called and asked about it. The woman on the phone said, "Oh, well we don't send thank you's for donations through payroll deduction." She didn't know anything about the gift.
“That was it...no apology...no "Let me put you through to someone who can help." Apparently, they didn't send the advertised gift for payroll deduction donations either because it never came. Why payroll deduction would have made any difference at all is perplexing. My friend was so infuriated that she never gave another cent and has plenty to say about the radio station whenever possible.
“I suspect that the woman my friend spoke to did not know what she was talking about, and that if the development department had known about the conversation they would be horrified.
“Overall there was a disconnect on several levels. What is their policy on thank you's? Is there a glitch in the fulfillment process that resulted in the gift not being sent? Why hadn't the woman on the phone been properly trained so that she knew the policies and what to do when her help was not enough? Why did she not appreciate the importance of a donor call such as that one?”
From my perspective, if an organization does not thank donors immediately and well, they virtually negate their foundational mission, within which their organizational mission is embedded, of community service.
An excerpt from the article.
“A friend donated a considerable amount of money through payroll deduction to her local public radio station. For that amount, she was supposed to receive a thermos with the station's logo on it.
“When she didn't receive the gift nor any kind of thank you from the station, she called and asked about it. The woman on the phone said, "Oh, well we don't send thank you's for donations through payroll deduction." She didn't know anything about the gift.
“That was it...no apology...no "Let me put you through to someone who can help." Apparently, they didn't send the advertised gift for payroll deduction donations either because it never came. Why payroll deduction would have made any difference at all is perplexing. My friend was so infuriated that she never gave another cent and has plenty to say about the radio station whenever possible.
“I suspect that the woman my friend spoke to did not know what she was talking about, and that if the development department had known about the conversation they would be horrified.
“Overall there was a disconnect on several levels. What is their policy on thank you's? Is there a glitch in the fulfillment process that resulted in the gift not being sent? Why hadn't the woman on the phone been properly trained so that she knew the policies and what to do when her help was not enough? Why did she not appreciate the importance of a donor call such as that one?”
Friday, October 7, 2011
Meeting With Peers
This is a good article from Stanford Social Innovation Review, touching on an important resource and fortunately, it is one available in Sacramento at the Nonprofit Resource Center ED Network, and here is their October meeting agenda.
An excerpt from the article
“We recently conducted a focus group with nonprofit CEOs in New York City. Given all the recent research that points to the value of peer-to-peer support for nonprofit leaders, we wanted to know why so little of this is done online. One CEO immediately responded, “We don’t have time.”
“The facilitator of the focus group was taken aback. “How do you have time to come to this two-hour focus group but don’t have the time to go online?”
“The leaders in the room saw the return on investment for a well-organized meeting with their peers to be much greater than anything they could do in the digital commons. They were more confident that they would get actionable insight into management techniques. But perhaps more importantly, the meeting provided an emotional and psychological benefit that is rarely met: a space for candid conversation about successes and failures in a safe, supportive environment. (highlighting added)
“Face-to-face conversations with other leaders—commercial and nonprofit—remind us that failure is, in fact, the norm and does not preclude success.
“If [CEOs’ successes] were graded on a curve, the mean on the test would be 22 out of a 100,” Ben Horowitz of Andreessen Horowitz recently wrote on TechCrunch. “This kind of mean can be psychologically challenging…because nobody tells you that the mean is 22.”
“If the buck stops at the CEO, every failure in our organization ends up piled on my desk—whether it’s a typo on the website, a bad hire, or a missed market opportunity. After just a week, the failures stack up so high that it is hard to see past the mountain of complaints.”
An excerpt from the article
“We recently conducted a focus group with nonprofit CEOs in New York City. Given all the recent research that points to the value of peer-to-peer support for nonprofit leaders, we wanted to know why so little of this is done online. One CEO immediately responded, “We don’t have time.”
“The facilitator of the focus group was taken aback. “How do you have time to come to this two-hour focus group but don’t have the time to go online?”
“The leaders in the room saw the return on investment for a well-organized meeting with their peers to be much greater than anything they could do in the digital commons. They were more confident that they would get actionable insight into management techniques. But perhaps more importantly, the meeting provided an emotional and psychological benefit that is rarely met: a space for candid conversation about successes and failures in a safe, supportive environment. (highlighting added)
“Face-to-face conversations with other leaders—commercial and nonprofit—remind us that failure is, in fact, the norm and does not preclude success.
“If [CEOs’ successes] were graded on a curve, the mean on the test would be 22 out of a 100,” Ben Horowitz of Andreessen Horowitz recently wrote on TechCrunch. “This kind of mean can be psychologically challenging…because nobody tells you that the mean is 22.”
“If the buck stops at the CEO, every failure in our organization ends up piled on my desk—whether it’s a typo on the website, a bad hire, or a missed market opportunity. After just a week, the failures stack up so high that it is hard to see past the mountain of complaints.”
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Author in Sacramento Today
Excellent opportunity to hear from author Dan Pallotta—his new book, Uncharitable: How Restraints on Nonprofits Undermine Their Potential is excellent and I posted on it in May—who will be in Sacramento later today, as reported by the Sacramento Business Journal.
An excerpt.
“As Sacramento kicks off a multiyear campaign to boost local charitable giving, the community gets a pep talk Thursday from a national philanthropy expert who challenges the way nonprofits are measured and regulated.
“Dan Pallotta, a Harvard professor and author of a provocative book on philanthropy, will speak from 5 to 8 p.m. Thursday at the Tsakopoulos Library Galleria. Tickets purchased in advance from the Nonprofit Resource Center ’s website are $35. Tickets at the door are $40. Pallotta will answer questions and sign his book after his talk.
“The Association of Fundraising Professionals, the Nonprofit Resource Center and philanthropists invited Pallotta to speak in Sacramento with the hope of convincing Sacramentans to think about philanthropy in new ways and to increase philanthropic support of this region’s nonprofits.
“The talk is in conjunction with the launch last month of the GiveLocalNow initiative that seeks to boost the amount given annually to local charities by $250 million.
“The public giving campaign launched after research found that the region lags the national giving average, particularly for households earning $200,000 or more.
“In the foreword of his most recent book, “Uncharitable: How Restraints on Nonprofits Undermine Their Potential,” Pallotta argues for “giving charity equal rights with the rest of the economic world and allowing it to use the system everyone else uses to get things done — free market capitalism.”
An excerpt.
“As Sacramento kicks off a multiyear campaign to boost local charitable giving, the community gets a pep talk Thursday from a national philanthropy expert who challenges the way nonprofits are measured and regulated.
“Dan Pallotta, a Harvard professor and author of a provocative book on philanthropy, will speak from 5 to 8 p.m. Thursday at the Tsakopoulos Library Galleria. Tickets purchased in advance from the Nonprofit Resource Center ’s website are $35. Tickets at the door are $40. Pallotta will answer questions and sign his book after his talk.
“The Association of Fundraising Professionals, the Nonprofit Resource Center and philanthropists invited Pallotta to speak in Sacramento with the hope of convincing Sacramentans to think about philanthropy in new ways and to increase philanthropic support of this region’s nonprofits.
“The talk is in conjunction with the launch last month of the GiveLocalNow initiative that seeks to boost the amount given annually to local charities by $250 million.
“The public giving campaign launched after research found that the region lags the national giving average, particularly for households earning $200,000 or more.
“In the foreword of his most recent book, “Uncharitable: How Restraints on Nonprofits Undermine Their Potential,” Pallotta argues for “giving charity equal rights with the rest of the economic world and allowing it to use the system everyone else uses to get things done — free market capitalism.”
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Starting Up
The initial period of building a new nonprofit to fulfill a mission is always more complicated than the novice realizes, and this article from Nonprofit About.com does a good job of looking at many of the relevant issues.
An excerpt with links at the jump.
“Starting a nonprofit is complex, with many missteps possible at any point. Going from nothing to a sustainable and financially healthy nonprofit is not for the timid. Avoiding these common nonprofit startup mistakes will get you off to a great beginning.
“From a review of the literature already available on this topic and by posting the question on various social networks such as LinkedIn, Facebook, and Quora, I found that these mistakes were the most likely to plague nonprofit startups:
“Lack of Research and Planning
“Lack of a business plan is one of the most prevalent mistakes that startup nonprofits make. In their enthusiasm to do good, many founders of nonprofits forget that a nonprofit is a type of business. Businesses have business plans in hand before launching. A business plan encompasses an evaluation of the competitive environment, sources of funding, potential products or services to be offered and to whom, and a needs assessment….
“Lack of Financial Savvy
“Close behind lack of planning is unrealistic expectations about funding for a startup nonprofit. Many founders do not anticipate what it will cost to start their nonprofit, much less have any idea of where to get the funds. Any nonprofit startup needs a funding plan, must decide if services provided will be available for a fee or be free, and should institute a good financial records system. A nonprofit that has weak funding at the beginning is unlikely to be able to sustain itself long enough to get a vigorous fundraising program going.”
An excerpt with links at the jump.
“Starting a nonprofit is complex, with many missteps possible at any point. Going from nothing to a sustainable and financially healthy nonprofit is not for the timid. Avoiding these common nonprofit startup mistakes will get you off to a great beginning.
“From a review of the literature already available on this topic and by posting the question on various social networks such as LinkedIn, Facebook, and Quora, I found that these mistakes were the most likely to plague nonprofit startups:
“Lack of Research and Planning
“Lack of a business plan is one of the most prevalent mistakes that startup nonprofits make. In their enthusiasm to do good, many founders of nonprofits forget that a nonprofit is a type of business. Businesses have business plans in hand before launching. A business plan encompasses an evaluation of the competitive environment, sources of funding, potential products or services to be offered and to whom, and a needs assessment….
“Lack of Financial Savvy
“Close behind lack of planning is unrealistic expectations about funding for a startup nonprofit. Many founders do not anticipate what it will cost to start their nonprofit, much less have any idea of where to get the funds. Any nonprofit startup needs a funding plan, must decide if services provided will be available for a fee or be free, and should institute a good financial records system. A nonprofit that has weak funding at the beginning is unlikely to be able to sustain itself long enough to get a vigorous fundraising program going.”
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Direct Mail
I am a big believer in direct mail—old school hand signed letter in an envelope to an individual carried by the postman—as one of the most potent forms of ongoing organizational communications with a large number of donors, and this article from The Nonprofit Times notes its continuing importance.
Also, a great how-to book I recommend is Building Your Direct Mail Program.
An excerpt from the Nonprofit Times article.
“As George Carlin said, the trouble with experience is that we don't get it until after we need it. Nonprofit decision-makers would love for the Great Recession to be over so they can put the bitter experience behind them, but the economy is still mired in a recovery that nobody notices.
“During the DMA Nonprofit Federation conference, Craig Finstad of the American Lung Association said that his organization has learned lessons about mailing during the recession, and he passed some of those lessons along.
“* If your piece is not in their mailbox, someone else's is. The strategy is to stay in front of renewal donors. The organization resisted pressure to cut the number of appeals without testing.
“* If you mail it, they will come.”
Also, a great how-to book I recommend is Building Your Direct Mail Program.
An excerpt from the Nonprofit Times article.
“As George Carlin said, the trouble with experience is that we don't get it until after we need it. Nonprofit decision-makers would love for the Great Recession to be over so they can put the bitter experience behind them, but the economy is still mired in a recovery that nobody notices.
“During the DMA Nonprofit Federation conference, Craig Finstad of the American Lung Association said that his organization has learned lessons about mailing during the recession, and he passed some of those lessons along.
“* If your piece is not in their mailbox, someone else's is. The strategy is to stay in front of renewal donors. The organization resisted pressure to cut the number of appeals without testing.
“* If you mail it, they will come.”
Monday, October 3, 2011
Social Media II
Following up on yesterday’s post, here is some specific info about why being on LinkedIn is a good idea.
An excerpt.
“1. LinkedIn is the world’s largest professional network with over 120 million members in over 200 countries and territories.
"While Facebook has 750,000 million users, many professionals prefer to use it exclusively for personal purposes. A recent study by Lab 42 showed that that 61% of people surveyed used LinkedIn for professional networking, compared to 22% for Facebook and 4% for Twitter.
“Professionals who are already using Twitter can set up their LinkedIn updates to appear in their Twitter feed and vice versa, so the two networks complement each other.
“As of July, 2011, Google + had already gained 20 million users, and it could become increasingly valuable over time. All the top social networks strive to add more features and gain new users, so there’s no guarantee that LinkedIn will be a useful network over the long term, but for now, it’s the best choice for most people who use social networking for professional purposes.
“2. LinkedIn helps professionals stay connected or to reconnect with people they already know, as well as get to know new people.
"It also provides opportunities for professionals to exchange knowledge and resources and be part of a broader network of people with similar interests.
“3. Nonprofits can create free “Company Pages” on LinkedIn to create visibility for their brand.
"The company pages also make it easier for non-profit organizations to promote their products and services, as well as get people to “follow” them and post:
status updates
job opportunities
news mentions
new hires
tweets
blog posts
“Over 101,000 organizations currently have a company page on LinkedIn.”
An excerpt.
“1. LinkedIn is the world’s largest professional network with over 120 million members in over 200 countries and territories.
"While Facebook has 750,000 million users, many professionals prefer to use it exclusively for personal purposes. A recent study by Lab 42 showed that that 61% of people surveyed used LinkedIn for professional networking, compared to 22% for Facebook and 4% for Twitter.
“Professionals who are already using Twitter can set up their LinkedIn updates to appear in their Twitter feed and vice versa, so the two networks complement each other.
“As of July, 2011, Google + had already gained 20 million users, and it could become increasingly valuable over time. All the top social networks strive to add more features and gain new users, so there’s no guarantee that LinkedIn will be a useful network over the long term, but for now, it’s the best choice for most people who use social networking for professional purposes.
“2. LinkedIn helps professionals stay connected or to reconnect with people they already know, as well as get to know new people.
"It also provides opportunities for professionals to exchange knowledge and resources and be part of a broader network of people with similar interests.
“3. Nonprofits can create free “Company Pages” on LinkedIn to create visibility for their brand.
"The company pages also make it easier for non-profit organizations to promote their products and services, as well as get people to “follow” them and post:
status updates
job opportunities
news mentions
new hires
tweets
blog posts
“Over 101,000 organizations currently have a company page on LinkedIn.”
Friday, September 30, 2011
Social Media
Some good advice about using social media from Third Sector New England.
An excerpt.
“If you post a message on Twitter and no one’s there to hear it, does it make a noise?
“The fact is, there isn’t much reason to tweet if you don’t have an audience—a fundamental truth of all social media channels. As you think about ways to engage constituents and advance your nonprofit and its mission through Facebook, Twitter and blogs, you should also be thinking about how to promote each channel and build your audience.
“Whether you call them “friends,” “fans,” “subscribers” or “followers,” they all mean the same thing for the purposes of this article: you need an audience for any social media strategy to work. The good news is, because of the network effect, attracting a few followers can often increase your potential audience exponentially—the very nature of social media makes it easy for your friends to spread the word to their own networks of friends, and so on.
“So how do you attract people to “like” your Facebook page, follow your Twitter feed or subscribe to your blog? We’ll walk through the key steps one-by-one.
“1. Ensure There’s Something Worth Paying Attention To
It should go without saying that if you want people to pay attention, post something they’ll find useful and relevant. This is true of all communications, not just social media.
“If you’re launching a new blog or Twitter account, start out by posting a few interesting things—even though no one is “listening” yet—to show the audience you hope to gain that your resources might interest them.
“How do you know what will interest the type of people you’d like to follow you? Ask them. Find a good representative sample of your desired audience and start a discussion with them, through conversations, phone interviews or a survey, about what kinds of posts they’d like to read.
“2. Seed Your Community
No one is ever drawn to an empty restaurant, no matter how good the food. Social media is similar—even with brilliant content, it’s difficult to attract supporters to a site that no one else is following.
“Reach out to your staff and other core supporters of your organization and ask them to follow your tweets, or “like” your Facebook page—and to invite their personal friends.
“Getting them to post comments or reply to your posts can help show an active community. A small, critical mass of followers will make it easier to attract others to your channel.
“3. Include Social Media Information with Your General Contact Information
Once you have a few core posts and a reputable-looking number of supporters, it’s time to open the doors to the general public. An easy way to begin doing this is to add your social media profile information anywhere your contact information is given. A Facebook or Twitter logo on your website can link people directly to your pages, and if you have a blog, make sure people can easily find it through your website.
“Email signature lines are often overlooked as useful places to distribute information. You put your title, phone number and email address there—why not include a link to your Facebook page and your Twitter profile?
“Part of getting people to be part of your social community is simply letting people know you have one.”
An excerpt.
“If you post a message on Twitter and no one’s there to hear it, does it make a noise?
“The fact is, there isn’t much reason to tweet if you don’t have an audience—a fundamental truth of all social media channels. As you think about ways to engage constituents and advance your nonprofit and its mission through Facebook, Twitter and blogs, you should also be thinking about how to promote each channel and build your audience.
“Whether you call them “friends,” “fans,” “subscribers” or “followers,” they all mean the same thing for the purposes of this article: you need an audience for any social media strategy to work. The good news is, because of the network effect, attracting a few followers can often increase your potential audience exponentially—the very nature of social media makes it easy for your friends to spread the word to their own networks of friends, and so on.
“So how do you attract people to “like” your Facebook page, follow your Twitter feed or subscribe to your blog? We’ll walk through the key steps one-by-one.
“1. Ensure There’s Something Worth Paying Attention To
It should go without saying that if you want people to pay attention, post something they’ll find useful and relevant. This is true of all communications, not just social media.
“If you’re launching a new blog or Twitter account, start out by posting a few interesting things—even though no one is “listening” yet—to show the audience you hope to gain that your resources might interest them.
“How do you know what will interest the type of people you’d like to follow you? Ask them. Find a good representative sample of your desired audience and start a discussion with them, through conversations, phone interviews or a survey, about what kinds of posts they’d like to read.
“2. Seed Your Community
No one is ever drawn to an empty restaurant, no matter how good the food. Social media is similar—even with brilliant content, it’s difficult to attract supporters to a site that no one else is following.
“Reach out to your staff and other core supporters of your organization and ask them to follow your tweets, or “like” your Facebook page—and to invite their personal friends.
“Getting them to post comments or reply to your posts can help show an active community. A small, critical mass of followers will make it easier to attract others to your channel.
“3. Include Social Media Information with Your General Contact Information
Once you have a few core posts and a reputable-looking number of supporters, it’s time to open the doors to the general public. An easy way to begin doing this is to add your social media profile information anywhere your contact information is given. A Facebook or Twitter logo on your website can link people directly to your pages, and if you have a blog, make sure people can easily find it through your website.
“Email signature lines are often overlooked as useful places to distribute information. You put your title, phone number and email address there—why not include a link to your Facebook page and your Twitter profile?
“Part of getting people to be part of your social community is simply letting people know you have one.”
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Classifying Nonprofits
Defining nonprofits has always been somewhat unfair to the really small organizations I like to work with, grassroots groups started by one person with a vision, and working to fulfill that with less (usually way less) than $250,000 annual revenue.
Karan Zapp has set up a good starting point through her survey, establishing six categories.
An excerpt, modified for clarity.
“Just over a month ago I reached out to the nonprofit industry.
“I asked leaders at nonprofits, colleagues at agencies, and other professionals to cast their vote to help establish classifications of nonprofit organizations by size. Specifically by annual gross receipts….
“Nano … annual gross receipts less than $250,000
“Micro … annual gross receipts greater than $250,000 and less than $500,000 (Range $250,000 – $500,000 per year)
“Small … annual gross receipts greater than $500,000 and less than $10-Million (Range $500,000 – $10 million/year)
“Medium … annual gross receipts greater than $10-Million and less than $50-Million (Range $10 – $50 million/year)
“Large … annual gross receipts greater than $50-Million and less than $100-Million (Range $50 – $100 million/year)
“Mega … annual gross receipts greater than $100-Million"
Karan Zapp has set up a good starting point through her survey, establishing six categories.
An excerpt, modified for clarity.
“Just over a month ago I reached out to the nonprofit industry.
“I asked leaders at nonprofits, colleagues at agencies, and other professionals to cast their vote to help establish classifications of nonprofit organizations by size. Specifically by annual gross receipts….
“Nano … annual gross receipts less than $250,000
“Micro … annual gross receipts greater than $250,000 and less than $500,000 (Range $250,000 – $500,000 per year)
“Small … annual gross receipts greater than $500,000 and less than $10-Million (Range $500,000 – $10 million/year)
“Medium … annual gross receipts greater than $10-Million and less than $50-Million (Range $10 – $50 million/year)
“Large … annual gross receipts greater than $50-Million and less than $100-Million (Range $50 – $100 million/year)
“Mega … annual gross receipts greater than $100-Million"
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Bequest Giving
It is generally something that is utilized only by large nonprofits, but has great relevance for small organizations with tight organizational structure and controls.
This article from Contributions Magazine examines what you need to do to start.
An excerpt.
“More and more organizations are using bequest societies to promote their bequest programs.
“In essence, a bequest society is simply a way to encourage and thank donors for their willingness to support your organization by naming you in their will.
“Creating a name
“Typical names for bequest societies include The Heritage Society, The Legacy Society, or even, more simply, The Bequest Society. Any of these are fine. However, you may want a name that accentuates your organization’s history or even a past bequest donor. For example:
• The 1914 Society: The organization’s incorporation date
• The Broad Street Society: Location of the facility
• The William Jones Society: Founder of the organization
“Some other names we’ve come across include: The Path Finders, Lamplighters Guild, The Circle of Concern, Dream Builders, and Friends for Life.
“The bequest society brochure
“A well-done brochure introducing your bequest society will often serve as your best means of communication with prospects. The brochure should include your case for support (or an abridged version of it); some brief, interesting history of your organization; and a return card allowing donors to request more information or notify you of their intent to leave a bequest.
“Make sure your inaugural publication has a shelf life of one to two years since you’ll often want to use it as a “leave-behind” piece for visits with potential donors.
“In your brochure, you’ll want to include the following:
1. Your bequest society’s name
2. How to make a bequest to your organization
3. Whom to contact for more information
4. A way for the reader to respond (postcard, self-addressed envelope)
5. An invitation to join the society (sometimes this is forgotten!)
“You may also want to include a brief letter from your president or executive director introducing the brochure and the new program.
“Your brochure needn’t be as elaborate, provided it includes the five key components we cited above.”
This article from Contributions Magazine examines what you need to do to start.
An excerpt.
“More and more organizations are using bequest societies to promote their bequest programs.
“In essence, a bequest society is simply a way to encourage and thank donors for their willingness to support your organization by naming you in their will.
“Creating a name
“Typical names for bequest societies include The Heritage Society, The Legacy Society, or even, more simply, The Bequest Society. Any of these are fine. However, you may want a name that accentuates your organization’s history or even a past bequest donor. For example:
• The 1914 Society: The organization’s incorporation date
• The Broad Street Society: Location of the facility
• The William Jones Society: Founder of the organization
“Some other names we’ve come across include: The Path Finders, Lamplighters Guild, The Circle of Concern, Dream Builders, and Friends for Life.
“The bequest society brochure
“A well-done brochure introducing your bequest society will often serve as your best means of communication with prospects. The brochure should include your case for support (or an abridged version of it); some brief, interesting history of your organization; and a return card allowing donors to request more information or notify you of their intent to leave a bequest.
“Make sure your inaugural publication has a shelf life of one to two years since you’ll often want to use it as a “leave-behind” piece for visits with potential donors.
“In your brochure, you’ll want to include the following:
1. Your bequest society’s name
2. How to make a bequest to your organization
3. Whom to contact for more information
4. A way for the reader to respond (postcard, self-addressed envelope)
5. An invitation to join the society (sometimes this is forgotten!)
“You may also want to include a brief letter from your president or executive director introducing the brochure and the new program.
“Your brochure needn’t be as elaborate, provided it includes the five key components we cited above.”
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Story of a Philanthropist
The Philanthropy Roundtable Magazine excels at publishing wonderful stories of philanthropists, how they came to be so and the causes they believe in.
This recent story is another great look at a philanthropist.
An excerpt.
“Hank Rowan was shocked. He paused for a moment, not sure if he had heard correctly. Sometimes he wondered why he even bothered with his hearing aid. No, he thought to himself, I’m pretty sure I heard that correctly. Astonishing, he thought, really astonishing. “This,” he finally told his guests, “is extraordinary.”
“It was early March 2008. The men had gathered at Rowan’s offices in suburban Rancocas, New Jersey, 20 miles east of Philadelphia. Outside the air was warm and wet, hinting at an early spring. The visitors were from nearby Media, Pennsylvania. They represented the Williamson Free School of Mechanical Trades. Rowan was one of their foremost benefactors.
“Rowan was first introduced to the school by Mike Piotrowicz, a Williamson trustee and booster. What Rowan found was a residential junior college dedicated to teaching skilled trades: carpentry, masonry, painting, landscaping, metalwork, and power plant management. Admissions are limited to unmarried men under the age of 20, all of whom come from families at no more than 250 percent of the federal poverty level. Each of the school’s 275 students receives a full scholarship.
“Rowan also knew that the 120-year-old school was facing an increasingly uncertain future. Williamson accepts no federal support, and the (now discontinued) stipend it received from the state came to just $64,000 annually. Over the course of the previous decade, its endowment had grown 20 percent, while its operating costs had risen 60 percent. Capital improvements were needed across the century-old campus. Fundraising was consuming ever more time and energy among the school’s senior leadership. The board became increasingly uncomfortable with the financial outlook. In order to secure the long-term viability of the school, it approved a $50 million capital campaign—a seemingly insurmountable sum for a school whose most successful campaign had netted $11 million.
“This, Rowan decided, is a unique opportunity to help a unique charity. In November 2007, five months before the meeting in his office, Rowan had issued a $5 million challenge to Williamson—in nominal terms, the largest gift in the school’s history. It was carefully structured, intending to open new funding sources for the school. It promised to match, dollar for dollar, any gifts from first-time donors, any gifts from people whose lifetime giving was less than $5,000, and any other gift at least five times larger than the previous largest gift. “Try this out,” Rowan said at the time. “I’d like to see how you do.”
“On that warm March morning, Rowan had expected an update about the challenge grant. He knew that the school had raised about $2 million so far, and he was curious how much more progress had been made. But the men who went to Rancocas on that March morning had unexpected news for Rowan. Paul Reid, then the president of Williamson, delivered the message.
“Reid told Rowan that he had visited another local philanthropist about the challenge. Rowan didn’t recognize the other man’s name. This gentleman, Reid continued, had a counter-offer of his own. If I were to put up $20 million, he had proposed, would Hank Rowan be willing to match me?
“Forge of Experience
“Henry Rowan is not easily surprised. An engineer by temperament as well as training, he has long been a methodical planner and a careful thinker. Tall, with erect posture and bright, alert eyes, the 87-year-old Rowan still strides purposefully and speaks in crisply formed sentences. Those traits have served him well throughout his storied career. Rowan is the founder of Inductotherm Industries, the global leader in the manufacture of induction systems for melting, heating, holding, and pouring metal.
“If anything, Rowan is accustomed to surprising others. In August 1945, for example, he dumbfounded the head finance officer at Roswell Air Force Base. Rowan had been training to be a bomber pilot since June 1943. The Germans surrendered shortly after he qualified on the B-17 Flying Fortress. He never deployed overseas. After V-J Day, the other pilots on base took it easy, passing time by playing cards, shooting pool, or knocking around volleyballs. Not Hank Rowan. He realized that he knew nothing about making payroll, but thought it was a skill that might someday be useful. So Rowan badgered the finance officer until he was given permission to spend his last two months in the military handling personnel compensation.
“After he was discharged, Rowan and his new wife, Betty, packed their belongings into a beat-up 1929 Chevy Coupe. In a car that topped out at 28 miles per hour, stopping five times along the way to retighten the engine bearings, they puttered from New Mexico to Massachusetts. There, Rowan re-enrolled at MIT. Supported by the G.I. Bill and savings from his service pay, he completed his degree in electrical engineering in 20 months—during which time, Betty gave birth to their first two children. The day after graduation, Rowan went to work. He took a job with Ajax Electrothermic Corporation in Trenton, New Jersey, then the world’s leading manufacturer of induction furnaces. Rowan was excited to come on board.
“He was soon disappointed. Since the discovery of the induction melting process in 1915, Ajax had enjoyed a virtual monopoly on the market. The company had grown comfortable, complacent. It expected customers to adjust to its expectations, rather than the other way around. Rowan chafed at its self-satisfaction, leaving the company in August 1952. But his restless mind kept grasping at missed opportunities, at the improvements that Ajax had always been reluctant to pursue. In April 1953, a friend and former customer named Paul Foley approached Rowan, telling him about his need for a furnace to melt beryllium copper. Rowan was plenty busy, but he was interested in the technical challenge. Over the next six weeks, he and Betty spent their free time in the backyard, building a 50-pound induction furnace.
“That furnace marked the launch of Inductotherm Industries. On June 6, 1954—exactly 10 years after D-Day—Rowan returned to the induction business as CEO, chief engineer, and, with Foley, half-owner of Inductotherm.”
This recent story is another great look at a philanthropist.
An excerpt.
“Hank Rowan was shocked. He paused for a moment, not sure if he had heard correctly. Sometimes he wondered why he even bothered with his hearing aid. No, he thought to himself, I’m pretty sure I heard that correctly. Astonishing, he thought, really astonishing. “This,” he finally told his guests, “is extraordinary.”
“It was early March 2008. The men had gathered at Rowan’s offices in suburban Rancocas, New Jersey, 20 miles east of Philadelphia. Outside the air was warm and wet, hinting at an early spring. The visitors were from nearby Media, Pennsylvania. They represented the Williamson Free School of Mechanical Trades. Rowan was one of their foremost benefactors.
“Rowan was first introduced to the school by Mike Piotrowicz, a Williamson trustee and booster. What Rowan found was a residential junior college dedicated to teaching skilled trades: carpentry, masonry, painting, landscaping, metalwork, and power plant management. Admissions are limited to unmarried men under the age of 20, all of whom come from families at no more than 250 percent of the federal poverty level. Each of the school’s 275 students receives a full scholarship.
“Rowan also knew that the 120-year-old school was facing an increasingly uncertain future. Williamson accepts no federal support, and the (now discontinued) stipend it received from the state came to just $64,000 annually. Over the course of the previous decade, its endowment had grown 20 percent, while its operating costs had risen 60 percent. Capital improvements were needed across the century-old campus. Fundraising was consuming ever more time and energy among the school’s senior leadership. The board became increasingly uncomfortable with the financial outlook. In order to secure the long-term viability of the school, it approved a $50 million capital campaign—a seemingly insurmountable sum for a school whose most successful campaign had netted $11 million.
“This, Rowan decided, is a unique opportunity to help a unique charity. In November 2007, five months before the meeting in his office, Rowan had issued a $5 million challenge to Williamson—in nominal terms, the largest gift in the school’s history. It was carefully structured, intending to open new funding sources for the school. It promised to match, dollar for dollar, any gifts from first-time donors, any gifts from people whose lifetime giving was less than $5,000, and any other gift at least five times larger than the previous largest gift. “Try this out,” Rowan said at the time. “I’d like to see how you do.”
“On that warm March morning, Rowan had expected an update about the challenge grant. He knew that the school had raised about $2 million so far, and he was curious how much more progress had been made. But the men who went to Rancocas on that March morning had unexpected news for Rowan. Paul Reid, then the president of Williamson, delivered the message.
“Reid told Rowan that he had visited another local philanthropist about the challenge. Rowan didn’t recognize the other man’s name. This gentleman, Reid continued, had a counter-offer of his own. If I were to put up $20 million, he had proposed, would Hank Rowan be willing to match me?
“Forge of Experience
“Henry Rowan is not easily surprised. An engineer by temperament as well as training, he has long been a methodical planner and a careful thinker. Tall, with erect posture and bright, alert eyes, the 87-year-old Rowan still strides purposefully and speaks in crisply formed sentences. Those traits have served him well throughout his storied career. Rowan is the founder of Inductotherm Industries, the global leader in the manufacture of induction systems for melting, heating, holding, and pouring metal.
“If anything, Rowan is accustomed to surprising others. In August 1945, for example, he dumbfounded the head finance officer at Roswell Air Force Base. Rowan had been training to be a bomber pilot since June 1943. The Germans surrendered shortly after he qualified on the B-17 Flying Fortress. He never deployed overseas. After V-J Day, the other pilots on base took it easy, passing time by playing cards, shooting pool, or knocking around volleyballs. Not Hank Rowan. He realized that he knew nothing about making payroll, but thought it was a skill that might someday be useful. So Rowan badgered the finance officer until he was given permission to spend his last two months in the military handling personnel compensation.
“After he was discharged, Rowan and his new wife, Betty, packed their belongings into a beat-up 1929 Chevy Coupe. In a car that topped out at 28 miles per hour, stopping five times along the way to retighten the engine bearings, they puttered from New Mexico to Massachusetts. There, Rowan re-enrolled at MIT. Supported by the G.I. Bill and savings from his service pay, he completed his degree in electrical engineering in 20 months—during which time, Betty gave birth to their first two children. The day after graduation, Rowan went to work. He took a job with Ajax Electrothermic Corporation in Trenton, New Jersey, then the world’s leading manufacturer of induction furnaces. Rowan was excited to come on board.
“He was soon disappointed. Since the discovery of the induction melting process in 1915, Ajax had enjoyed a virtual monopoly on the market. The company had grown comfortable, complacent. It expected customers to adjust to its expectations, rather than the other way around. Rowan chafed at its self-satisfaction, leaving the company in August 1952. But his restless mind kept grasping at missed opportunities, at the improvements that Ajax had always been reluctant to pursue. In April 1953, a friend and former customer named Paul Foley approached Rowan, telling him about his need for a furnace to melt beryllium copper. Rowan was plenty busy, but he was interested in the technical challenge. Over the next six weeks, he and Betty spent their free time in the backyard, building a 50-pound induction furnace.
“That furnace marked the launch of Inductotherm Industries. On June 6, 1954—exactly 10 years after D-Day—Rowan returned to the induction business as CEO, chief engineer, and, with Foley, half-owner of Inductotherm.”
Monday, September 26, 2011
Keeping Donors
It is one of the most crucial aspects of operating a successful nonprofit, and the methods to accomplish it are well-known and commonsensical, as this article from Nonprofit About.Com notes.
An excerpt, with links at the jump.
“Katya Andresen reported recently on a study that showed nonprofits in 2010 lost $5.54 for every $5.35 that they gained in donations. Donor attrition results in a net loss of nearly two percent.
“The good thing is that nonprofits may be getting better at engaging donors and keeping them since the attrition rate decreased from minus 3.2 percent in 2009….
“The difference between donors that stay around and increase their level of giving to a cause is commitment. Commitment is a scale from low to high that can be measured.
“For every 1000 donors that an organization can move from low commitment to high commitment, it could gain, on average, $200,000 more income.
“This study identified, out of many possibilities, seven key drivers of donor commitment. These are things that your nonprofit can do to improve donor commitment scores. Those seven drivers are:
1. Showing that you are effectively trying to achieve your mission.
2. Letting donors know what they can expect from every interaction.
3. Providing timely thank you's.
4. Giving donors the opportunity to express their views.
5. Helping the donor to feel that he or she is part of an important cause.
6. Making sure that donors feel involved and appreciated.
7. Providing information about who is being helped.”
An excerpt, with links at the jump.
“Katya Andresen reported recently on a study that showed nonprofits in 2010 lost $5.54 for every $5.35 that they gained in donations. Donor attrition results in a net loss of nearly two percent.
“The good thing is that nonprofits may be getting better at engaging donors and keeping them since the attrition rate decreased from minus 3.2 percent in 2009….
“The difference between donors that stay around and increase their level of giving to a cause is commitment. Commitment is a scale from low to high that can be measured.
“For every 1000 donors that an organization can move from low commitment to high commitment, it could gain, on average, $200,000 more income.
“This study identified, out of many possibilities, seven key drivers of donor commitment. These are things that your nonprofit can do to improve donor commitment scores. Those seven drivers are:
1. Showing that you are effectively trying to achieve your mission.
2. Letting donors know what they can expect from every interaction.
3. Providing timely thank you's.
4. Giving donors the opportunity to express their views.
5. Helping the donor to feel that he or she is part of an important cause.
6. Making sure that donors feel involved and appreciated.
7. Providing information about who is being helped.”
Friday, September 23, 2011
Fundraising Strategies
The bottom-line in any effective fundraising strategy is communication.
Communicating with your donor community, communicating with the larger community, communicating what it is about your mission that is important and how you are fulfilling it, and this article from Communications Magazine is excellent.
An excerpt.
“You’ve done your homework. You know your pitch. You believe in your mission, and understand the reasons donors give your organization. Even so, you may feel that your fundraising has plateaued… that you’re stuck in a rut or missing out on key giving opportunities. Many times, you may simply feel a sense of malaise – that no matter how much you try, you aren’t leveling up.
“Today, we offer you nine great ideas for powering back on, and taking your fundraising game to a whole new level:
“1. Turn off the Computer and Pick up the Phone
The next time you are getting ready to send out an e-mail, I want you to stop – turn off the computer – and pick up the phone. Instead of e-mailing that donor, prospect, board member or community leader, pick up the phone and call. It’s far more personal and has lasting positive effects on the relationship.
“2. Join a New Networking Organization
Running out of new people to talk with about your organization? Join a new networking group. It could be a local chamber of commerce, the Kiwanis club, your college alumni association, a business group… whatever it is, join and start going to meetings to connect with more people.
“3. Jump on Social Networks with Renewed Vigor
You may have started that Twitter account, LinkedIn Group or Facebook company page with the best of intentions, but as time went on, your interest may have waned, you got discouraged, or simply stopped participating. Now is the time to reengage!
“4. Listen to Your Staff and Volunteers
When was the last time you asked for – and listened to – new fundraising ideas from your staff and volunteers? Get them into the room and ask them for ideas: What should we try? Who should we talk to? What can I do to help you?
“5. Take Your 5 Smallest Donors Out to Lunch
Everyone takes their biggest donors out to networking lunches – and you should too – but have you thought about taking your 5 smallest donors out to lunch? You know, those old ladies who give $50 a year to your annual appeal or those young professionals right out of college who give $25 because they saw an ad for your organization online? Call ‘em up, take ‘em out to lunch, and see what motivates them to give. Maybe they could give more? Maybe they have friends who would want to give? Maybe they will just be shocked that you called… It was only $25 after all!”
Communicating with your donor community, communicating with the larger community, communicating what it is about your mission that is important and how you are fulfilling it, and this article from Communications Magazine is excellent.
An excerpt.
“You’ve done your homework. You know your pitch. You believe in your mission, and understand the reasons donors give your organization. Even so, you may feel that your fundraising has plateaued… that you’re stuck in a rut or missing out on key giving opportunities. Many times, you may simply feel a sense of malaise – that no matter how much you try, you aren’t leveling up.
“Today, we offer you nine great ideas for powering back on, and taking your fundraising game to a whole new level:
“1. Turn off the Computer and Pick up the Phone
The next time you are getting ready to send out an e-mail, I want you to stop – turn off the computer – and pick up the phone. Instead of e-mailing that donor, prospect, board member or community leader, pick up the phone and call. It’s far more personal and has lasting positive effects on the relationship.
“2. Join a New Networking Organization
Running out of new people to talk with about your organization? Join a new networking group. It could be a local chamber of commerce, the Kiwanis club, your college alumni association, a business group… whatever it is, join and start going to meetings to connect with more people.
“3. Jump on Social Networks with Renewed Vigor
You may have started that Twitter account, LinkedIn Group or Facebook company page with the best of intentions, but as time went on, your interest may have waned, you got discouraged, or simply stopped participating. Now is the time to reengage!
“4. Listen to Your Staff and Volunteers
When was the last time you asked for – and listened to – new fundraising ideas from your staff and volunteers? Get them into the room and ask them for ideas: What should we try? Who should we talk to? What can I do to help you?
“5. Take Your 5 Smallest Donors Out to Lunch
Everyone takes their biggest donors out to networking lunches – and you should too – but have you thought about taking your 5 smallest donors out to lunch? You know, those old ladies who give $50 a year to your annual appeal or those young professionals right out of college who give $25 because they saw an ad for your organization online? Call ‘em up, take ‘em out to lunch, and see what motivates them to give. Maybe they could give more? Maybe they have friends who would want to give? Maybe they will just be shocked that you called… It was only $25 after all!”
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Retaining & Creating Donors
Very good advice from Contributions Magazine.
An excerpt.
“Why is it that fund raisers don’t have time to devote to building relationships with their most promising donors? Often it is because they are busy organizing galas, awards dinners, or other events that are expected to raise big bucks and bring in new “heavy hitters” but somehow always fall short of expectations. Here are some tips for keeping the focus on donor stewardship when you plan your next event.
"1. Respect your donors
The people who support your organization are motivated by some combination of belief in your mission, respect for the person who introduced you to them, and excitement about your organizational personality. When you get a gift before, during, or after an event, remember that it was an actual person who wrote that check.
"2. Use your event to focus on your mission
Every step of your event – invitations, program books, speeches, party favors, thank you notes – gives you the chance to cement the connection between your donors and the missions that they make possible. Tug some heart strings. Tell some tear-jerking stories. Make the mission come to life.
"3. Do not indulge in excess party planning
Keep it simple. Minimize every celebratory flourish that does NOT connect your donors and partners with your mission. Don’t break a sweat about the color of the napkins.
"4. Use the event to enlarge your family
A mission-focused event is a great way to engage new people. Don’t get hung up on the price of a ticket. If it will benefit your organization in the long run to have someone get introduced, find a way to invite him or her as the guest of the executive director. Or of a board member.”
An excerpt.
“Why is it that fund raisers don’t have time to devote to building relationships with their most promising donors? Often it is because they are busy organizing galas, awards dinners, or other events that are expected to raise big bucks and bring in new “heavy hitters” but somehow always fall short of expectations. Here are some tips for keeping the focus on donor stewardship when you plan your next event.
"1. Respect your donors
The people who support your organization are motivated by some combination of belief in your mission, respect for the person who introduced you to them, and excitement about your organizational personality. When you get a gift before, during, or after an event, remember that it was an actual person who wrote that check.
"2. Use your event to focus on your mission
Every step of your event – invitations, program books, speeches, party favors, thank you notes – gives you the chance to cement the connection between your donors and the missions that they make possible. Tug some heart strings. Tell some tear-jerking stories. Make the mission come to life.
"3. Do not indulge in excess party planning
Keep it simple. Minimize every celebratory flourish that does NOT connect your donors and partners with your mission. Don’t break a sweat about the color of the napkins.
"4. Use the event to enlarge your family
A mission-focused event is a great way to engage new people. Don’t get hung up on the price of a ticket. If it will benefit your organization in the long run to have someone get introduced, find a way to invite him or her as the guest of the executive director. Or of a board member.”
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
The Post Office
We couldn’t do without them, and this nice reflection from Nonprofit About.com highlights their value to all of us.
An excerpt, with links at the jump..
“I really don't want the post office or mail delivery to go away.
“It's true, I've complained over the years...about grumpy postal employees, long lines to mail packages at the holidays, circling the block waiting for a parking space in tiny post office lots, and the constantly rising cost of stamps.
“But, I've rarely met a post person delivering my mail that I didn't like. I still love checking my mailbox and am sorely disappointed when it's empty. Even junk mail seems somehow comforting.
“I don't mind if the postal service drops Saturday deliveries, closes some post offices, and phases out overnight mail...all actions that are being considered by postal service management and, soon, by congress.
“I just don't want to lose it. Nonprofits, I'm sure, don't want to lose it either. Even though all of our electronic wizardry has helped threaten the USPS, we can't get along without it.
“Direct mail fundraising is still the most widely used and successful of any fundraising technique ever, and think of all the thank you letters, newsletters, and invitations that the nonprofit sector sends daily.”
An excerpt, with links at the jump..
“I really don't want the post office or mail delivery to go away.
“It's true, I've complained over the years...about grumpy postal employees, long lines to mail packages at the holidays, circling the block waiting for a parking space in tiny post office lots, and the constantly rising cost of stamps.
“But, I've rarely met a post person delivering my mail that I didn't like. I still love checking my mailbox and am sorely disappointed when it's empty. Even junk mail seems somehow comforting.
“I don't mind if the postal service drops Saturday deliveries, closes some post offices, and phases out overnight mail...all actions that are being considered by postal service management and, soon, by congress.
“I just don't want to lose it. Nonprofits, I'm sure, don't want to lose it either. Even though all of our electronic wizardry has helped threaten the USPS, we can't get along without it.
“Direct mail fundraising is still the most widely used and successful of any fundraising technique ever, and think of all the thank you letters, newsletters, and invitations that the nonprofit sector sends daily.”
Monday, September 19, 2011
Donation Statistics
The ongoing difficulty raising funds is reported in an article from The Chronicle of Philanthropy, with links at the jump.
An excerpt.
“Charities are barely raising enough money from new and repeat donors to keep up with the losses from people who have stopped giving, according to a new study of donor records for 2,377 charities.
“In total, the charities in the study raised more than $1.6-billion last year. But for every $5.35 that they received in donations, they lost $5.54 from donors who gave less or stopped giving altogether.
“As a result, contributions fell by an average of 1.9 percent.
“That finding, however, shows improvement over the previous two years, when the charities fell even further behind in contributions.
“The charities in the study lost an average of 17.7 percent in contributions during 2009 after flat returns the year before.
“The charities in the study also did better in increasing the number of people who support their organizations, with an average 1.7-percent increase in supporters, compared with a 2.2-percent loss in 2009.
“Charities are not paying enough attention to retaining the donors that they worked so hard to get in previous years,” said Elizabeth Boris, director of the Urban Institute’s Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy, which released the study with the Association of Fundraising Professionals. “Nonprofits have to get better at telling current donors what they’ve accomplished and building that connection that will last.”
An excerpt.
“Charities are barely raising enough money from new and repeat donors to keep up with the losses from people who have stopped giving, according to a new study of donor records for 2,377 charities.
“In total, the charities in the study raised more than $1.6-billion last year. But for every $5.35 that they received in donations, they lost $5.54 from donors who gave less or stopped giving altogether.
“As a result, contributions fell by an average of 1.9 percent.
“That finding, however, shows improvement over the previous two years, when the charities fell even further behind in contributions.
“The charities in the study lost an average of 17.7 percent in contributions during 2009 after flat returns the year before.
“The charities in the study also did better in increasing the number of people who support their organizations, with an average 1.7-percent increase in supporters, compared with a 2.2-percent loss in 2009.
“Charities are not paying enough attention to retaining the donors that they worked so hard to get in previous years,” said Elizabeth Boris, director of the Urban Institute’s Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy, which released the study with the Association of Fundraising Professionals. “Nonprofits have to get better at telling current donors what they’ve accomplished and building that connection that will last.”
Friday, September 16, 2011
Nonprofit Overhead
It often causes troubles when nonprofit managers are trying to describe how their organization fulfills its mission to potential donors, but, as the excellent book, Uncharitable: How Restraints on Nonprofits Undermine Their Potential, explains:
“Overhead is a Fiction
“The very thing we are trying to measure is a phantom. We are taught to think of overhead as the enemy of all good causes. Its evil is supernatural. But there is no such thing as overhead—not as we have been taught to think about it, as something separate and distinct from the cause itself.
“The definition of a cynic has been said to be a person who knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing. The issue of nonprofit overhead ratios is a cynic’s paradise. When we ask, “What percentage of my donation goes to the cause?” we are asking about overhead, and we give rise to this illusion of something other than the cause—something that has little or no value to the cause. We create a sharp dividing line between one kind of expense and another kind of expense, both of which are going to help the cause but one of which we are told is not. The word “overhead” explicitly encourages us to create a distinction about expenses that has no basis in reality. Not only is what we call overhead not bad, it’s not not going to the cause. In fact, it is. The distinction is a distortion.
“One hundred percent of the money we donate to charity goes to charity, unless one kind of fraud is going on or some kind of ineptitude. And if there is fraud or ineptitude, asking what percentage of donations goes to the cause is hardly likely to reveal it. People who commit fraud don’t report it in line-item detail. People who are inept are as inept at reporting their overhead percentages as they are at performing good works. Absent these problems, we should assume that every cent out of every dollar we give to charity is going in good faith to serve some kind of charitable purpose, as the charity best sees fit to serve that purpose.” (pp. 162-163)
“Overhead is a Fiction
“The very thing we are trying to measure is a phantom. We are taught to think of overhead as the enemy of all good causes. Its evil is supernatural. But there is no such thing as overhead—not as we have been taught to think about it, as something separate and distinct from the cause itself.
“The definition of a cynic has been said to be a person who knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing. The issue of nonprofit overhead ratios is a cynic’s paradise. When we ask, “What percentage of my donation goes to the cause?” we are asking about overhead, and we give rise to this illusion of something other than the cause—something that has little or no value to the cause. We create a sharp dividing line between one kind of expense and another kind of expense, both of which are going to help the cause but one of which we are told is not. The word “overhead” explicitly encourages us to create a distinction about expenses that has no basis in reality. Not only is what we call overhead not bad, it’s not not going to the cause. In fact, it is. The distinction is a distortion.
“One hundred percent of the money we donate to charity goes to charity, unless one kind of fraud is going on or some kind of ineptitude. And if there is fraud or ineptitude, asking what percentage of donations goes to the cause is hardly likely to reveal it. People who commit fraud don’t report it in line-item detail. People who are inept are as inept at reporting their overhead percentages as they are at performing good works. Absent these problems, we should assume that every cent out of every dollar we give to charity is going in good faith to serve some kind of charitable purpose, as the charity best sees fit to serve that purpose.” (pp. 162-163)
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Websites, Our Front Porch
They are just that for most nonprofits and they should be inviting the visitor to actually knock on the door, wanting to come in and stay awhile, as this article from Nonprofit About.com reports.
An excerpt.
“Even after reading about it, I don't understand a Weibull Distribution and really don't even care. But the latest news from Jakob Nielsen's wonky Alertbox is still very useful when trying to figure out how to keep your visitors on your webpages long enough to count.
“Visitors don't stay very long...period.
“It turns out that the average webpage visitor stays less than a minute. But, if the reader finds your webpage "valuable," he or she may stay longer. What counts are the first 10 seconds! That's when we "triage" the information and make a snap decision about its value to us.
“Once the webpage survives the 10 second mark, it's likely your reader will hang around a bit, at least for another 20 or 30 seconds. If they stay beyond that, they might even hang out there for a couple of minutes or more.
“Why is this important? Turns out that search engines love high quality webpages that keep readers around. The longer they stay, the higher your page is likely to rank in a search.”
An excerpt.
“Even after reading about it, I don't understand a Weibull Distribution and really don't even care. But the latest news from Jakob Nielsen's wonky Alertbox is still very useful when trying to figure out how to keep your visitors on your webpages long enough to count.
“Visitors don't stay very long...period.
“It turns out that the average webpage visitor stays less than a minute. But, if the reader finds your webpage "valuable," he or she may stay longer. What counts are the first 10 seconds! That's when we "triage" the information and make a snap decision about its value to us.
“Once the webpage survives the 10 second mark, it's likely your reader will hang around a bit, at least for another 20 or 30 seconds. If they stay beyond that, they might even hang out there for a couple of minutes or more.
“Why is this important? Turns out that search engines love high quality webpages that keep readers around. The longer they stay, the higher your page is likely to rank in a search.”
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Board Members & Courage
This article from Venture Philanthropy Partners is excellent, reminding board members that their job is to ask questions, get answers, and bring the level of passion, skill, and talent for which they were originally recruited as board members, to the proceedings of the board and fulfillment of the mission of the organization.
An excerpt.
“They check their brains at the door” is a complaint often heard about business leaders who serve on nonprofit boards. This complaint has merit. I regularly observe business leaders who are reluctant to apply the same rigor, objective questioning, performance expectations, and data-informed decision-making that serve them well in their day jobs.
“I’ve been guilty of this myself. I remember, with great chagrin and embarrassment, how much difficulty I had finding my sea legs when I first joined a nonprofit board. I was appalled by the lack of information available to us, and the little information we did have told me that the organization and its charismatic leader were struggling mightily. Instead of speaking up and constructively demanding the level of stewardship and governance that I took for granted in my corporate board roles, I just got frustrated and said little.
“I don’t think I checked my brains at the door. But I sure as hell checked my courage.
“As I reflect on why I didn’t speak up, I suppose I just didn’t know what my role “allowed” me to say or ask. I was the new guy from the business world without any real experience with the type of services the organization provided. I joined this board thinking it would be a “nice thing to do” and certainly not intending to ruffle feathers.
“I know others from the business world have felt this same hesitation, as well as a related one: Friendships and social ties with the executive director and other board members can blur objectivity and a sense of accountability.
“The net is that too many nonprofit boards are downright afraid to stir conflict, rock the boat with hard questions, challenge executive directors, and hold the organization accountable for its performance. We simply don’t want to “hurt somebody’s feelings” or, God forbid, introduce any aspect of conflict—even when it might spur constructive debate. Unfortunately, when we elevate “harmony” over mission and purpose, our clients/beneficiaries often pay a big price in terms of the quality of services they receive.
“Timid, polite, “collegial” boards may eventually start asking the right questions, but often it’s too late. The questioning finally comes when they’re faced with a problem so severe that they have no choice but to tackle the real issues. By that time, they’re in crisis mode, which, ironically, almost always results in broken glass and busted relationships as well as well as less-than-desired programmatic results.”
An excerpt.
“They check their brains at the door” is a complaint often heard about business leaders who serve on nonprofit boards. This complaint has merit. I regularly observe business leaders who are reluctant to apply the same rigor, objective questioning, performance expectations, and data-informed decision-making that serve them well in their day jobs.
“I’ve been guilty of this myself. I remember, with great chagrin and embarrassment, how much difficulty I had finding my sea legs when I first joined a nonprofit board. I was appalled by the lack of information available to us, and the little information we did have told me that the organization and its charismatic leader were struggling mightily. Instead of speaking up and constructively demanding the level of stewardship and governance that I took for granted in my corporate board roles, I just got frustrated and said little.
“I don’t think I checked my brains at the door. But I sure as hell checked my courage.
“As I reflect on why I didn’t speak up, I suppose I just didn’t know what my role “allowed” me to say or ask. I was the new guy from the business world without any real experience with the type of services the organization provided. I joined this board thinking it would be a “nice thing to do” and certainly not intending to ruffle feathers.
“I know others from the business world have felt this same hesitation, as well as a related one: Friendships and social ties with the executive director and other board members can blur objectivity and a sense of accountability.
“The net is that too many nonprofit boards are downright afraid to stir conflict, rock the boat with hard questions, challenge executive directors, and hold the organization accountable for its performance. We simply don’t want to “hurt somebody’s feelings” or, God forbid, introduce any aspect of conflict—even when it might spur constructive debate. Unfortunately, when we elevate “harmony” over mission and purpose, our clients/beneficiaries often pay a big price in terms of the quality of services they receive.
“Timid, polite, “collegial” boards may eventually start asking the right questions, but often it’s too late. The questioning finally comes when they’re faced with a problem so severe that they have no choice but to tackle the real issues. By that time, they’re in crisis mode, which, ironically, almost always results in broken glass and busted relationships as well as well as less-than-desired programmatic results.”
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
501 c 3 Nonprofit Startups
It is complicated, much more so than most people realize, and much more difficult than even a few years ago due to an increase in the IRS regulations around obtaining the tax exemption, yet it is one of my favorite tasks as a consultant, helping someone committed to a mission getting incorporated, grounded, and working.
This free online nonprofit management resource is terrific and this article from Nonprofit About.com is an excellent look at starting up.
An excerpt, with a bunch of links at the jump.
“Starting a nonprofit is complex, with many missteps possible at any point. Going from nothing to a sustainable and financially healthy nonprofit is not for the timid. Avoiding these common nonprofit startup mistakes will get you off to a great beginning.
“From a review of the literature already available on this topic and by posting the question on various social networks such as LinkedIn, Facebook, and Quora, I found that these mistakes were the most likely to plague nonprofit startups:
“Lack of a business plan is one of the most prevalent mistakes that startup nonprofits make. In their enthusiasm to do good, many founders of nonprofits forget that a nonprofit is a type of business. Businesses have business plans in hand before launching. A business plan encompasses an evaluation of the competitive environment, sources of funding, potential products or services to be offered and to whom, and a needs assessment.
“Lack of Financial Savvy
“Close behind lack of planning is unrealistic expectations about funding for a startup nonprofit. Many founders do not anticipate what it will cost to start their nonprofit, much less have any idea of where to get the funds. Any nonprofit startup needs a funding plan, must decide if services provided will be available for a fee or be free, and should institute a good financial records system. A nonprofit that has weak funding at the beginning is unlikely to be able to sustain itself long enough to get a vigorous fundraising program going.”
This free online nonprofit management resource is terrific and this article from Nonprofit About.com is an excellent look at starting up.
An excerpt, with a bunch of links at the jump.
“Starting a nonprofit is complex, with many missteps possible at any point. Going from nothing to a sustainable and financially healthy nonprofit is not for the timid. Avoiding these common nonprofit startup mistakes will get you off to a great beginning.
“From a review of the literature already available on this topic and by posting the question on various social networks such as LinkedIn, Facebook, and Quora, I found that these mistakes were the most likely to plague nonprofit startups:
“Lack of a business plan is one of the most prevalent mistakes that startup nonprofits make. In their enthusiasm to do good, many founders of nonprofits forget that a nonprofit is a type of business. Businesses have business plans in hand before launching. A business plan encompasses an evaluation of the competitive environment, sources of funding, potential products or services to be offered and to whom, and a needs assessment.
“Lack of Financial Savvy
“Close behind lack of planning is unrealistic expectations about funding for a startup nonprofit. Many founders do not anticipate what it will cost to start their nonprofit, much less have any idea of where to get the funds. Any nonprofit startup needs a funding plan, must decide if services provided will be available for a fee or be free, and should institute a good financial records system. A nonprofit that has weak funding at the beginning is unlikely to be able to sustain itself long enough to get a vigorous fundraising program going.”
Monday, September 12, 2011
Nonprofits and Information Technology
A good article about this—with several resources linked—from the Foundation Center.
An excerpt, with links at the jump.
“PND: How has the Great Recession affected the information technology field, and what has that meant for nonprofits?
“Stephanie Cuskley: From my perspective, and based on conversations I've had with others in the field, the recession has forced everyone to throttle back on their IT spending. At the same time, companies have started to think about how IT is not just a cost but a strategic initiative that drives who we are and what we do.
“Today, I think there's a lot more focus on IT as an innovation opportunity as opposed to just a line-item for corporations, and I think nonprofits feel the same way. However, IT is not something nonprofits get a lot of funding for, so most cover their IT expenses by carving out funds from other places. Generally, when they lose funding, nonprofits are forced to look at how they could do IT cheaply while still driving their mission forward. I think that's one reason why so many organizations have taken to social media. They're searching for innovative ideas and are more interested in implementing them. Nonprofits today are saying "Yes, I will look at cloud computing" because it and other online tools are cheaper, have some flexibility, and help organizations increase their reach.
“PND: Since 2002, NPower's Technology Service Corps has helped underserved high school graduates in New York City become IT professionals. With the unemployment rate stuck at 9.2 percent, what's the outlook for hiring and salaries for recent graduates entering the field?
“SC: Actually, the IT world is in pretty good shape right now. People are hiring and we have seen incredible response from the corporate community and continued good response from nonprofits for our graduates. I think we're benefiting from the fact that the IT community is pretty robust. It is taking the nonprofit community much longer to recover from the recession than it has the for-profit IT community, because government budgets, which support a lot of nonprofits, are still weak.
“PND: Last November, you launched The Community Corps to connect IT volunteers to nonprofits with IT needs. How is TCC different from portals like VolunteerMatch or the federal site United We Serve, and how are they similar?
“SC: TCC is focused exclusively on the IT field and is project-oriented. NPower scopes out the IT projects included on TCC, which users of the site — nonprofits, public schools, and libraries — can use or create on their own. The site's automated matching algorithm then matches a volunteer who has the skills and interest to a group in need.
“The site is similar to other online volunteer portals because it is highly scalable. Like VolunteerMatch, which includes listings from across the country, TCC has expanded to thirty-eight states since its launch. With the help of NPower's corporate sponsors, the site has grown exponentially over the past seven months. For example, one sponsor that joined the site recently sent a note out to its employees and in four days two hundred volunteers signed up, resulting in forty matches and forty nonprofits getting free IT help.”
An excerpt, with links at the jump.
“PND: How has the Great Recession affected the information technology field, and what has that meant for nonprofits?
“Stephanie Cuskley: From my perspective, and based on conversations I've had with others in the field, the recession has forced everyone to throttle back on their IT spending. At the same time, companies have started to think about how IT is not just a cost but a strategic initiative that drives who we are and what we do.
“Today, I think there's a lot more focus on IT as an innovation opportunity as opposed to just a line-item for corporations, and I think nonprofits feel the same way. However, IT is not something nonprofits get a lot of funding for, so most cover their IT expenses by carving out funds from other places. Generally, when they lose funding, nonprofits are forced to look at how they could do IT cheaply while still driving their mission forward. I think that's one reason why so many organizations have taken to social media. They're searching for innovative ideas and are more interested in implementing them. Nonprofits today are saying "Yes, I will look at cloud computing" because it and other online tools are cheaper, have some flexibility, and help organizations increase their reach.
“PND: Since 2002, NPower's Technology Service Corps has helped underserved high school graduates in New York City become IT professionals. With the unemployment rate stuck at 9.2 percent, what's the outlook for hiring and salaries for recent graduates entering the field?
“SC: Actually, the IT world is in pretty good shape right now. People are hiring and we have seen incredible response from the corporate community and continued good response from nonprofits for our graduates. I think we're benefiting from the fact that the IT community is pretty robust. It is taking the nonprofit community much longer to recover from the recession than it has the for-profit IT community, because government budgets, which support a lot of nonprofits, are still weak.
“PND: Last November, you launched The Community Corps to connect IT volunteers to nonprofits with IT needs. How is TCC different from portals like VolunteerMatch or the federal site United We Serve, and how are they similar?
“SC: TCC is focused exclusively on the IT field and is project-oriented. NPower scopes out the IT projects included on TCC, which users of the site — nonprofits, public schools, and libraries — can use or create on their own. The site's automated matching algorithm then matches a volunteer who has the skills and interest to a group in need.
“The site is similar to other online volunteer portals because it is highly scalable. Like VolunteerMatch, which includes listings from across the country, TCC has expanded to thirty-eight states since its launch. With the help of NPower's corporate sponsors, the site has grown exponentially over the past seven months. For example, one sponsor that joined the site recently sent a note out to its employees and in four days two hundred volunteers signed up, resulting in forty matches and forty nonprofits getting free IT help.”
Friday, September 9, 2011
Ken Kesey & Sacramento
When Ken Kesey spoke in Sacramento on the Quad at Sac State in the halcyon days of love, beads, and flower power, I was there, and it was a memorable event in my life forming the foundation of the thinking that led me to a lifetime of work in the nonprofit sector.
But that was not all he did while visiting Sacramento, as the last paragraph in this excerpt from an article about him & Jack Kerouac in the American Scholar notes.
An excerpt.
“If the 1950s and ’60s belonged to Jack Kerouac, then the ’60s and ’70s belonged to Ken Kesey. Both of them were my clients, and I liked and admired each of them. Although they differed in age, personality, and writing styles, they overlapped as writers of their times, and there was room for both. Each man was an iconoclastic thinker whose writing and philosophy inspired passionate devotion in his readers.
“Before I ever met Kesey, Tom Guinzburg, president of Viking Press, called me one day in 1961 to ask whether Kerouac would write a blurb for One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, Kesey’s first novel. Tom had bought the book, but Viking had not yet published it. Publishers are always looking for well-known writers to offer positive comments for the book jacket or a press release. A blurb can be particularly helpful if readers feel there is a creative relationship between the two writers. I had no idea whether Kerouac would help, because I couldn’t remember his having blurbed before, but I didn’t think he would be offended if I asked. I thought he might even be flattered. So I told Tom to send me the manuscript. I read it before passing it on to Jack, and I knew right then that I wanted to work with Kesey. His novel was a bold, creative story of what happens in a mental institution—a very daring subject for his time. In the end, Jack did not write a blurb; he felt uncomfortable doing it, perhaps not wanting to get into that arena and all that went with it, and I respected that….
“Kesey had an open mind, but once he had made up his mind, he stuck to it. People often associate One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest with the movie and Jack Nicholson’s outstanding performance in it. But Kesey never saw it. Shortly before the movie was released, he and Faye met with a studio lawyer to clear up questions related to its future earnings. The lawyer managed to offend both Ken and Faye, and at one point he became so irate with Ken that he yelled, “When the movie comes out, you’ll be the first in line to see it.” Ken just glared at him and swore to himself he would never see it—and he never did.
“When I was with him in New York City in 2001, a few months before he died, he still hadn’t seen the movie that so many people associate with him. We were sitting in the Royale Theater with David Stanford, Ken’s editor and longtime friend, and a reporter for The New York Times who was doing a story about Ken. We were watching a revival of One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest by the Steppenwolf Theatre Company from Chicago. I could tell that Ken was interested in the performance but not very enthusiastic about it. So I asked him, “Ken, what’s the best theatrical performance of Cuckoo’s Nest you’ve ever seen?” Without a moment’s hesitation, he said, “Sacramento High School.” I was really surprised. And then he added, “They caught the ambiance better than anyone before or since.” Age hadn’t changed him or dimmed his perception in any way. He was the same Ken I had come to know so well.” (highlighting added)
But that was not all he did while visiting Sacramento, as the last paragraph in this excerpt from an article about him & Jack Kerouac in the American Scholar notes.
An excerpt.
“If the 1950s and ’60s belonged to Jack Kerouac, then the ’60s and ’70s belonged to Ken Kesey. Both of them were my clients, and I liked and admired each of them. Although they differed in age, personality, and writing styles, they overlapped as writers of their times, and there was room for both. Each man was an iconoclastic thinker whose writing and philosophy inspired passionate devotion in his readers.
“Before I ever met Kesey, Tom Guinzburg, president of Viking Press, called me one day in 1961 to ask whether Kerouac would write a blurb for One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, Kesey’s first novel. Tom had bought the book, but Viking had not yet published it. Publishers are always looking for well-known writers to offer positive comments for the book jacket or a press release. A blurb can be particularly helpful if readers feel there is a creative relationship between the two writers. I had no idea whether Kerouac would help, because I couldn’t remember his having blurbed before, but I didn’t think he would be offended if I asked. I thought he might even be flattered. So I told Tom to send me the manuscript. I read it before passing it on to Jack, and I knew right then that I wanted to work with Kesey. His novel was a bold, creative story of what happens in a mental institution—a very daring subject for his time. In the end, Jack did not write a blurb; he felt uncomfortable doing it, perhaps not wanting to get into that arena and all that went with it, and I respected that….
“Kesey had an open mind, but once he had made up his mind, he stuck to it. People often associate One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest with the movie and Jack Nicholson’s outstanding performance in it. But Kesey never saw it. Shortly before the movie was released, he and Faye met with a studio lawyer to clear up questions related to its future earnings. The lawyer managed to offend both Ken and Faye, and at one point he became so irate with Ken that he yelled, “When the movie comes out, you’ll be the first in line to see it.” Ken just glared at him and swore to himself he would never see it—and he never did.
“When I was with him in New York City in 2001, a few months before he died, he still hadn’t seen the movie that so many people associate with him. We were sitting in the Royale Theater with David Stanford, Ken’s editor and longtime friend, and a reporter for The New York Times who was doing a story about Ken. We were watching a revival of One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest by the Steppenwolf Theatre Company from Chicago. I could tell that Ken was interested in the performance but not very enthusiastic about it. So I asked him, “Ken, what’s the best theatrical performance of Cuckoo’s Nest you’ve ever seen?” Without a moment’s hesitation, he said, “Sacramento High School.” I was really surprised. And then he added, “They caught the ambiance better than anyone before or since.” Age hadn’t changed him or dimmed his perception in any way. He was the same Ken I had come to know so well.” (highlighting added)
Thursday, September 8, 2011
California Nonprofits & Property Taxes
Some interesting developments reported by this story in the New York Times.
An excerpt.
“A growing number of nonprofit groups in California are being denied exemption from property taxes because the state’s chief tax collector and assessors contend they do not do enough to benefit state residents, according to lawyers representing the groups.
“I have a client who applied for the exemption recently and has been denied on the basis that it would not be doing enough to benefit the citizens of California,” said Ofer Lion, a lawyer. Mr. Lion would not name his client, but said it was a new charity with “a global outlook in its mission.”
“They purchased a building in California because they relied on being able to qualify for property tax exemption,” he said. “If it has to pay the tax, it’s not going to go under, but less money will, of course, be available for its mission.”
“No one knows how many nonprofit groups in California have been affected or why the issue has become contentious now, but the state’s budget woes have been mentioned as a likely motive. “It probably has something to do with the economy,” said Stephanie L. Petit, who has clients dealing with the process. “I think regulators are starting to look more closely at organizations that have the property tax exemption.”
“State and local governments have been taking a hard look at nonprofits and the various tax exemptions they receive for the last couple of years, as tax revenues have fallen and the demand for public services has risen.
“Last year, Hawaii tried — and failed — to impose a 1 percent tax on nonprofit groups. Boston has asked nonprofits to pay the city what is essentially a discounted property tax, and Chicago plans to ask nonprofits to start paying water and sewer fees.
“Not surprisingly, such plans run into stiff opposition from nonprofit groups and their political supporters. But in California, the rules on the property tax exemption for nonprofits evolved out of a 1944 ballot initiative, so they are more grounded than in many other places — if not necessarily applied assiduously by county assessors.
“The state has a two-tiered system, in which nonprofits first apply to the Board of Equalization, which collects state-mandated fees, sales and sin taxes and certifies exemption eligibility.”
An excerpt.
“A growing number of nonprofit groups in California are being denied exemption from property taxes because the state’s chief tax collector and assessors contend they do not do enough to benefit state residents, according to lawyers representing the groups.
“I have a client who applied for the exemption recently and has been denied on the basis that it would not be doing enough to benefit the citizens of California,” said Ofer Lion, a lawyer. Mr. Lion would not name his client, but said it was a new charity with “a global outlook in its mission.”
“They purchased a building in California because they relied on being able to qualify for property tax exemption,” he said. “If it has to pay the tax, it’s not going to go under, but less money will, of course, be available for its mission.”
“No one knows how many nonprofit groups in California have been affected or why the issue has become contentious now, but the state’s budget woes have been mentioned as a likely motive. “It probably has something to do with the economy,” said Stephanie L. Petit, who has clients dealing with the process. “I think regulators are starting to look more closely at organizations that have the property tax exemption.”
“State and local governments have been taking a hard look at nonprofits and the various tax exemptions they receive for the last couple of years, as tax revenues have fallen and the demand for public services has risen.
“Last year, Hawaii tried — and failed — to impose a 1 percent tax on nonprofit groups. Boston has asked nonprofits to pay the city what is essentially a discounted property tax, and Chicago plans to ask nonprofits to start paying water and sewer fees.
“Not surprisingly, such plans run into stiff opposition from nonprofit groups and their political supporters. But in California, the rules on the property tax exemption for nonprofits evolved out of a 1944 ballot initiative, so they are more grounded than in many other places — if not necessarily applied assiduously by county assessors.
“The state has a two-tiered system, in which nonprofits first apply to the Board of Equalization, which collects state-mandated fees, sales and sin taxes and certifies exemption eligibility.”
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Nonprofit Websites
They are the front porch of most nonprofits and it is vital that they be kept spruced up and inviting, as this article from Nonprofit About.com writes.
An excerpt.
“I finally gave up on finding any information online about nearby senior centers for my neighbor. There was next to no information online, and certainly no websites.
“I then looked for senior centers in the next county and found wonderful sites for each of the several centers with photos of volunteers, activities, and facilities. My neighbor started going to one that was just over our county line and really not too far away. Our city's senior centers were out of luck.
“A website for a nonprofit or a government organization is a given by now. You simply do not exist if you are not findable online. People (of all ages) search for what they want online.
“However, some nonprofits think that if they just put up a static site, that will be enough. But, in truth, those may be worse than not having one. A website should be living, dynamic and energetic. It should reflect your organization's personality and mission through great photos, copy, and design.
“There are three reasons so many websites lack any spark, and they don't have anything to do with bells and whistles such as flash, videos, or twitter feeds:
"1. Outdated information. Consider the message you send if your website has not been touched in months. Fresh, lively content should be added at least weekly. New photos should be mixed in at least every couple of months. Blogs should be updated at least twice a week and more if possible.
"An easy way to refresh a website without changing everything is to provide a feature area on the home page for a short article and photo of something new at your nonprofit. A preview of an upcoming event; an update of a fundraising campaign; a heart warming story of a client helped; a profile of a long-time donor. These can all be slotted in at regular intervals while the bulk of your site stays basically the same.”
An excerpt.
“I finally gave up on finding any information online about nearby senior centers for my neighbor. There was next to no information online, and certainly no websites.
“I then looked for senior centers in the next county and found wonderful sites for each of the several centers with photos of volunteers, activities, and facilities. My neighbor started going to one that was just over our county line and really not too far away. Our city's senior centers were out of luck.
“A website for a nonprofit or a government organization is a given by now. You simply do not exist if you are not findable online. People (of all ages) search for what they want online.
“However, some nonprofits think that if they just put up a static site, that will be enough. But, in truth, those may be worse than not having one. A website should be living, dynamic and energetic. It should reflect your organization's personality and mission through great photos, copy, and design.
“There are three reasons so many websites lack any spark, and they don't have anything to do with bells and whistles such as flash, videos, or twitter feeds:
"1. Outdated information. Consider the message you send if your website has not been touched in months. Fresh, lively content should be added at least weekly. New photos should be mixed in at least every couple of months. Blogs should be updated at least twice a week and more if possible.
"An easy way to refresh a website without changing everything is to provide a feature area on the home page for a short article and photo of something new at your nonprofit. A preview of an upcoming event; an update of a fundraising campaign; a heart warming story of a client helped; a profile of a long-time donor. These can all be slotted in at regular intervals while the bulk of your site stays basically the same.”
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Public Private Partnerships
These are generally very good arrangements, allowing the public sector to maintain ownership—and ultimate control—over the commons, while having the private sector, either a forprofit or nonprofit, manage it.
However, some see problems with this, but those expressed in this article from My South End in Boston, appear more geared towards public safety, which most people visiting the park in question would probably applaud.
An excerpt.
“It’s lunchtime on a beautiful spring day in Boston. You sit on a bench in a park right in the middle of the city. You check out the buildings around you and marvel at how much they are worth thanks to the protected green space where you are sitting. Everyone loves this space.
“While you sit happily, enjoying the sun, it might bother you to learn that the land on which you bask is publicly owned -- but privately controlled. The City handed it to a private development group to build an underground garage topped with this park. The renowned private Friends group that keeps the park beautiful and decides who can use it is actually this for-profit development group, and their enormously profitable 1400-car garage is exempt from City property taxes, enjoying a tax break about ten times the amount of the park’s maintenance costs.
“While you ponder those troubling facts, don’t plan a protest: free speech and free assembly are prohibited in the park. Private surveillance cameras surround the park, and parents playing ball with a child, casual musicians, citizens collecting political signatures or distributing political information, groups of visitors, people wielding cameras and persons lying on benches or appearing to be asleep - don’t sit with your eyes closed sunning your face! -- may be asked to leave.
“Sound like something from George Orwell’s 1984? Or maybe you misunderstood and it’s a private garden?
“Nope. Welcome to the "public" Post Office Square Park, operated privately for the enjoyment of, well, desirable people, mainly the employees and clients of the nearby office-tower owners , and customers of the park’s up-scale cafe.
“Boston’s famed Post Office Square Park is a poster-child of public-realm philanthropy. It is a privately managed open space that has vastly enhanced the property values of its founding abutters, who otherwise faced the competition of a new tower on that site. The Park’s creators have won the trust and good will of public officials and city residents, who laud its manicured upkeep. But the City agreement anticipated $300,000 a year in profit-sharing to benefit other parks; none of that has materialized, because Park costs but not garage profits are attributed to the Friends.”
However, some see problems with this, but those expressed in this article from My South End in Boston, appear more geared towards public safety, which most people visiting the park in question would probably applaud.
An excerpt.
“It’s lunchtime on a beautiful spring day in Boston. You sit on a bench in a park right in the middle of the city. You check out the buildings around you and marvel at how much they are worth thanks to the protected green space where you are sitting. Everyone loves this space.
“While you sit happily, enjoying the sun, it might bother you to learn that the land on which you bask is publicly owned -- but privately controlled. The City handed it to a private development group to build an underground garage topped with this park. The renowned private Friends group that keeps the park beautiful and decides who can use it is actually this for-profit development group, and their enormously profitable 1400-car garage is exempt from City property taxes, enjoying a tax break about ten times the amount of the park’s maintenance costs.
“While you ponder those troubling facts, don’t plan a protest: free speech and free assembly are prohibited in the park. Private surveillance cameras surround the park, and parents playing ball with a child, casual musicians, citizens collecting political signatures or distributing political information, groups of visitors, people wielding cameras and persons lying on benches or appearing to be asleep - don’t sit with your eyes closed sunning your face! -- may be asked to leave.
“Sound like something from George Orwell’s 1984? Or maybe you misunderstood and it’s a private garden?
“Nope. Welcome to the "public" Post Office Square Park, operated privately for the enjoyment of, well, desirable people, mainly the employees and clients of the nearby office-tower owners , and customers of the park’s up-scale cafe.
“Boston’s famed Post Office Square Park is a poster-child of public-realm philanthropy. It is a privately managed open space that has vastly enhanced the property values of its founding abutters, who otherwise faced the competition of a new tower on that site. The Park’s creators have won the trust and good will of public officials and city residents, who laud its manicured upkeep. But the City agreement anticipated $300,000 a year in profit-sharing to benefit other parks; none of that has materialized, because Park costs but not garage profits are attributed to the Friends.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
