It is a given aspect of any capacity building consultant—a consultant who works on all of the major aspects (strategic planning, fund development, board development, , communications) of building the capacity of nonprofits, as I do—but lately has become an end unto itself, which is a very good trend.
This article from Third Sector looks at individual leadership coaching,and though I have never been referred to as a "bulldog with no teeth" as the author has, I have been accused of being somewhat persistent of the importance of embracing learning.
An excerpt.
“A client once described me as a “bulldog with no teeth.” She meant it as a compliment! Along with a colleague, I was working with this client to support her commitment to diversity and inclusion. Yet as intentional as she was, she was also fearful and subtly resisted the change at the same time. So a vital part of the work included individual coaching to support her to clarify goals and to voice and work through her concerns.
“What Is A “Bulldog With No Teeth”?
“The executive described my coaching as steadfast—like a bulldog, I didn’t let go—but in a supportive way (it didn’t hurt, hence “no teeth”). Through this wonderful phrase, I believe she identified a core reason why coaching can be so valuable.
“As gently but firmly as I could, I asked her to directly confront her fears and go deeper to her beliefs about power and leadership. As a coach I asked her to look how her emotional responses were both moving the work forward and inhibiting it, despite her very strong intention. I asked her to listen to feedback (not criticism!). And, most importantly, I supported her taking concrete action.
“Engaging In-the-Moment
“At one point during an all-staff retreat, I provided in-the-moment coaching and asked her to explore the interactions she was having with staff right there-and-then. Her strength and values shone through at that moment, because rather than defensively dismiss me, she engaged and explored aloud. All could hear the difficult mixed thoughts and feelings she was experiencing.
“She was willing to practice new ways of responding, which had an immediate impact. Her modeling inspired other staff people to speak up and, together, they made progress building a more cohesive team.
“Overall the work was so successful that the client, my colleague and I presented our case study at a national conference. The client was very open in sharing with this audience about the support and challenge she experienced and the role that one-to-one coaching played for her.
“Impacting the Whole System
“Coaching impacts more than the individual being coached, if the emphasis is on identifying results for the organization that further the mission. The ripple effects through the organization can be great.
“Coaching can be valuable for executive directors, program managers, board members and teams, whether experienced or emerging. Rather than being “selfish” or a “luxury” as some in the non-profit sector see it, effective, results-oriented coaching helps improve leadership insight and action—critical as nonprofits adjust to changing realities. In the corporate sector, coaching is seen a plus to help valued leaders move to the next level of effectiveness.”
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Speaking Truth
A good article from the Nonprofit Quarterly about the consequences of telling the truth versus lying, within organizations.
An excerpt.
“We have all experienced the public lie that goes unchallenged. It may be baldly untrue but somehow accepted as the basis for action with life and death consequences. Some of our experience of public lies may be based on differences in values or perceptions, but sometimes what is said just simply violates the facts—this is disheartening and drives people out of public participation.
“The same may be said of organizations. A nonprofit may, on the surface, be making every effort to promote teamwork and “the higher good,” but if its people continue to perceive a culture that supports a different and less reliable set of operating norms and assumptions than what is written or espoused, they will not bring themselves wholly to our efforts.
“Here are some typical reasons for telling lies:
• to avoid pain or unpleasant consequences;
• to promote self-interest and a particular point of view;
• to protect the leaders or the organization;
• to perpetuate myths that hold the organization or a point of view together;
“Regardless of why they are told, untruths and lies can cause people to disengage—and they can also diminish the spirit people bring into the workplace. This leads to a sometimes massive loss of applied human intellectual and physical capital assets. A disinvestment of human spirit results in what I refer to as a Gross National People Divestiture (GNPD). The GNPD index in any organization or society can be directly related to the prevalence and magnitude of untruths told and allowed to stand. GNPD occurs when your organization’s tolerance of untruth creates a climate of cynical disbelief engendering a lack of trust in information and relationships. This automatically creates management problems that are sometimes difficult to put your finger on but are often very powerfully present nonetheless.
“Our challenge is to buck the culture and engage people in building a climate of truth telling that will lead to a newly revived work ethic and heightened individual and collective energy. In order to do this effectively, we must understand the conditions that support the emergence of truth, and understand and eliminate those that routinely undermine its presence in our organizations.”
An excerpt.
“We have all experienced the public lie that goes unchallenged. It may be baldly untrue but somehow accepted as the basis for action with life and death consequences. Some of our experience of public lies may be based on differences in values or perceptions, but sometimes what is said just simply violates the facts—this is disheartening and drives people out of public participation.
“The same may be said of organizations. A nonprofit may, on the surface, be making every effort to promote teamwork and “the higher good,” but if its people continue to perceive a culture that supports a different and less reliable set of operating norms and assumptions than what is written or espoused, they will not bring themselves wholly to our efforts.
“Here are some typical reasons for telling lies:
• to avoid pain or unpleasant consequences;
• to promote self-interest and a particular point of view;
• to protect the leaders or the organization;
• to perpetuate myths that hold the organization or a point of view together;
“Regardless of why they are told, untruths and lies can cause people to disengage—and they can also diminish the spirit people bring into the workplace. This leads to a sometimes massive loss of applied human intellectual and physical capital assets. A disinvestment of human spirit results in what I refer to as a Gross National People Divestiture (GNPD). The GNPD index in any organization or society can be directly related to the prevalence and magnitude of untruths told and allowed to stand. GNPD occurs when your organization’s tolerance of untruth creates a climate of cynical disbelief engendering a lack of trust in information and relationships. This automatically creates management problems that are sometimes difficult to put your finger on but are often very powerfully present nonetheless.
“Our challenge is to buck the culture and engage people in building a climate of truth telling that will lead to a newly revived work ethic and heightened individual and collective energy. In order to do this effectively, we must understand the conditions that support the emergence of truth, and understand and eliminate those that routinely undermine its presence in our organizations.”
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Making the Person
What impact does the work a person does have on the making of the person?, a crucial question in nonprofit work.
An intriguing start of an answer comes from the Harvard Business School Newsletter.
An excerpt.
“We've supposed for a long time that certain behaviors foster relationships that can determine success or failure. Now improved technologies (such as brain imaging) combined with imaginative research are producing new insights into how people perceive and influence one another. It is leading to advice and training designed to change behaviors that influence perceptions and possibly even increase job opportunities and on-the-job success.
“The work of Amy Cuddy, a social psychologist on the HBS faculty, and her colleagues has produced some of the most intriguing results. This research concludes that by far the strongest influences that we have on one another result from a person's perceived warmth and competence. These two dimensions help us understand how we think about and act toward others.
“Some conclusions are that:
• When assessing someone else, warmth plays a more important role than competence.
• When assessing ourselves, we believe that competence (the capability of someone to carry out intentions) is more important…
“But perhaps most interesting of all, Cuddy's team has found evidence that the act of assuming power affects hormones. It raises levels of testosterone (associated with power and dominance) and reduces levels of cortisol (denoting stress) in ways that resemble people already in positions of power. In short, it raises the possibility that behaviors can be influenced through a change in jobs that changes body chemistry. Presumably, the effect varies with individuals.”
An intriguing start of an answer comes from the Harvard Business School Newsletter.
An excerpt.
“We've supposed for a long time that certain behaviors foster relationships that can determine success or failure. Now improved technologies (such as brain imaging) combined with imaginative research are producing new insights into how people perceive and influence one another. It is leading to advice and training designed to change behaviors that influence perceptions and possibly even increase job opportunities and on-the-job success.
“The work of Amy Cuddy, a social psychologist on the HBS faculty, and her colleagues has produced some of the most intriguing results. This research concludes that by far the strongest influences that we have on one another result from a person's perceived warmth and competence. These two dimensions help us understand how we think about and act toward others.
“Some conclusions are that:
• When assessing someone else, warmth plays a more important role than competence.
• When assessing ourselves, we believe that competence (the capability of someone to carry out intentions) is more important…
“But perhaps most interesting of all, Cuddy's team has found evidence that the act of assuming power affects hormones. It raises levels of testosterone (associated with power and dominance) and reduces levels of cortisol (denoting stress) in ways that resemble people already in positions of power. In short, it raises the possibility that behaviors can be influenced through a change in jobs that changes body chemistry. Presumably, the effect varies with individuals.”
Monday, March 28, 2011
Evaluation Strategies
Public Private Ventures has produced a white paper on evaluation that presents some ideas that would help smaller nonprofits, who are usually not well enough funded or staffed to conduct rigorous evaluations, as reported in their news release.
An excerpt.
“In this white paper, P/PV proposes a comprehensive and bold re-thinking of how nonprofits are evaluated. Rejecting a rigid, one-size-fits-all model that focuses narrowly on determining a program's success or failure, Priorities for a New Decade proposes an approach that fully engages nonprofit practitioners as partners in evaluation efforts, reflects a deep understanding of local circumstances and constraints, and suggests guidelines for evaluation and scaling that actually support on-the-ground program quality and performance.
“In the coming months, we will advance these ideas through a number of new endeavors focused on improving the on-the-ground quality and effectiveness of social programs, including:
• Reflecting on and synthesizing our learning in key areas, creating a solid foundation for future initiatives.
• Developing several initiatives that advance the creative, practical use of research and evaluation to improve program effectiveness.
• Launching several new research and demonstration projects in our core areas of workforce development, youth development and criminal justice.”
An excerpt.
“In this white paper, P/PV proposes a comprehensive and bold re-thinking of how nonprofits are evaluated. Rejecting a rigid, one-size-fits-all model that focuses narrowly on determining a program's success or failure, Priorities for a New Decade proposes an approach that fully engages nonprofit practitioners as partners in evaluation efforts, reflects a deep understanding of local circumstances and constraints, and suggests guidelines for evaluation and scaling that actually support on-the-ground program quality and performance.
“In the coming months, we will advance these ideas through a number of new endeavors focused on improving the on-the-ground quality and effectiveness of social programs, including:
• Reflecting on and synthesizing our learning in key areas, creating a solid foundation for future initiatives.
• Developing several initiatives that advance the creative, practical use of research and evaluation to improve program effectiveness.
• Launching several new research and demonstration projects in our core areas of workforce development, youth development and criminal justice.”
Friday, March 25, 2011
Art & Philanthropy
Using art to further causes nonprofits advocate for to encourage philanthropy is a powerful resource and this article from the Wall Street Journal, focusing on its use with environmental efforts, reveal the application’s effectiveness.
An excerpt.
“Effective activism is an art form, some say. With Clean Air Network, the Hong Kong environmental group, advocacy is art.
“If you’ve walked through the IFC mall’s atrium this week, you’ve probably seen the art exhibition by the nonprofit group, which is dedicated to raising awareness about pollution in Hong Kong. The show runs there through Sunday, and then moves to Hong Kong’s convention center on April 1 as part of the preview of Sotheby’s spring sale there.
“The auction house will sell the works on April 4 to raise money for the Clean Air Network.
“Art is a popular and approachable means of reaching a broader swath of the public,” says Joanne Ooi, the group’s chief executive.”
An excerpt.
“Effective activism is an art form, some say. With Clean Air Network, the Hong Kong environmental group, advocacy is art.
“If you’ve walked through the IFC mall’s atrium this week, you’ve probably seen the art exhibition by the nonprofit group, which is dedicated to raising awareness about pollution in Hong Kong. The show runs there through Sunday, and then moves to Hong Kong’s convention center on April 1 as part of the preview of Sotheby’s spring sale there.
“The auction house will sell the works on April 4 to raise money for the Clean Air Network.
“Art is a popular and approachable means of reaching a broader swath of the public,” says Joanne Ooi, the group’s chief executive.”
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Sage of Omaha Encourages Philanthropy
Warren Buffett makes an excellent case, as reported by the Omaha World-Herald.
An excerpt.
“Billionaire Warren Buffett said philanthropists must be prepared for some efforts to fail, and that major charitable initiatives are taking too little risk if they meet their goals every time.
“Intelligent charity, big-time charity should tackle things where it’ll fail,” Buffett, 80, said Tuesday at a press conference in Bangalore, India. “If you succeed in everything you’re doing in charity, you’re attempting things that are too easy.”
“Buffett, the world’s third-wealthiest person, started the Giving Pledge with Microsoft Corp. co-founder Bill Gates in June, aiming to persuade U.S. billionaires to commit more than half of their wealth to charity. The chairman and chief executive officer of Berkshire Hathaway Inc. is promoting philanthropy to billionaires around the world. He is in India for the first time after visiting South Korea earlier this week.
“Buffett has pledged the bulk of his wealth to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the world’s largest philanthropic organization, which combats poverty and disease and funds U.S. education initiatives.
“He has also made commitments to the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation, named for his late wife, and charities run by his three children. His donations have funded access to abortion, subsistence farming in developing nations, and efforts to reduce violence against women and girls.
“If everything they do is successful, they’re a failure,” Buffett says of his children. “Because it means they’re taking on things that are too easy. They should be taking on things that are tougher.”
An excerpt.
“Billionaire Warren Buffett said philanthropists must be prepared for some efforts to fail, and that major charitable initiatives are taking too little risk if they meet their goals every time.
“Intelligent charity, big-time charity should tackle things where it’ll fail,” Buffett, 80, said Tuesday at a press conference in Bangalore, India. “If you succeed in everything you’re doing in charity, you’re attempting things that are too easy.”
“Buffett, the world’s third-wealthiest person, started the Giving Pledge with Microsoft Corp. co-founder Bill Gates in June, aiming to persuade U.S. billionaires to commit more than half of their wealth to charity. The chairman and chief executive officer of Berkshire Hathaway Inc. is promoting philanthropy to billionaires around the world. He is in India for the first time after visiting South Korea earlier this week.
“Buffett has pledged the bulk of his wealth to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the world’s largest philanthropic organization, which combats poverty and disease and funds U.S. education initiatives.
“He has also made commitments to the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation, named for his late wife, and charities run by his three children. His donations have funded access to abortion, subsistence farming in developing nations, and efforts to reduce violence against women and girls.
“If everything they do is successful, they’re a failure,” Buffett says of his children. “Because it means they’re taking on things that are too easy. They should be taking on things that are tougher.”
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Helping Small Movie Theaters
Ideas, becoming a nonprofit is one (some of which are already being used for the few left in Sacramento) could come from this article in the Chicago Tribune.
An excerpt.
“MADISON, Wis.— The Strand is gone in Mount Horeb.
“So, too, is the Rex in Mauston and the Odeon in Beaver Dam.
“For the movie theaters that remain in downtowns around the state, the margins can be narrow, maintenance and utility costs high and the future uncertain in an age of changing technology, sleek multi-screen cinemas, Redbox movies for $1 and Netflix shows streamed directly to television.
“That's why the small theaters, most of them single-screen operations, are diversifying in an effort to maintain their tenuous hold.
“In addition to movies, some host musical concerts, plays and magicians.
“One movie theater company has a program that allows video game enthusiasts to use their PlayStation and Nintendo systems on the big screen for two hours. The $65 fee for four people includes unlimited soda and popcorn.
"It's all about finding other revenue sources," said Jeremy Patnaude, general manager of State Theatres in Platteville, which also operates theaters in Boscobel, Lancaster, Dodgeville and Menomonie. "It's utilizing what you have."
“Movies are big business. In 2009 theaters sold 1.4 billion tickets that generated $10.6 billion in revenue. The number of screens has been on the rise, but the number of locations is declining, the result of single-screen theaters closing and the construction of massive multiplex theaters, some with restaurants and their own parking ramps, according to the National Association of Theatre Owners.
“The Al. Ringling Theatre in Baraboo used to compete with multi-screen cinemas in Lake Delton and Reedsburg. But over the past year, the theater abandoned showing new releases and switched to classic and independent films. Showings have included "Casablanca" and the "Wizard of Oz." Over Labor Day weekend, "Jaws," originally released in 1975, hit the 17-by-39-foot screen. The Alfred Hitchcock thriller, "North by Northwest," is scheduled for March 25-26.
"They see (the film) the way it was meant to be seen," said Brian Heller, executive director of the historic theater owned since 1989 by a nonprofit organization. "Just because it's old doesn't mean its entertainment value has diminished."
An excerpt.
“MADISON, Wis.— The Strand is gone in Mount Horeb.
“So, too, is the Rex in Mauston and the Odeon in Beaver Dam.
“For the movie theaters that remain in downtowns around the state, the margins can be narrow, maintenance and utility costs high and the future uncertain in an age of changing technology, sleek multi-screen cinemas, Redbox movies for $1 and Netflix shows streamed directly to television.
“That's why the small theaters, most of them single-screen operations, are diversifying in an effort to maintain their tenuous hold.
“In addition to movies, some host musical concerts, plays and magicians.
“One movie theater company has a program that allows video game enthusiasts to use their PlayStation and Nintendo systems on the big screen for two hours. The $65 fee for four people includes unlimited soda and popcorn.
"It's all about finding other revenue sources," said Jeremy Patnaude, general manager of State Theatres in Platteville, which also operates theaters in Boscobel, Lancaster, Dodgeville and Menomonie. "It's utilizing what you have."
“Movies are big business. In 2009 theaters sold 1.4 billion tickets that generated $10.6 billion in revenue. The number of screens has been on the rise, but the number of locations is declining, the result of single-screen theaters closing and the construction of massive multiplex theaters, some with restaurants and their own parking ramps, according to the National Association of Theatre Owners.
“The Al. Ringling Theatre in Baraboo used to compete with multi-screen cinemas in Lake Delton and Reedsburg. But over the past year, the theater abandoned showing new releases and switched to classic and independent films. Showings have included "Casablanca" and the "Wizard of Oz." Over Labor Day weekend, "Jaws," originally released in 1975, hit the 17-by-39-foot screen. The Alfred Hitchcock thriller, "North by Northwest," is scheduled for March 25-26.
"They see (the film) the way it was meant to be seen," said Brian Heller, executive director of the historic theater owned since 1989 by a nonprofit organization. "Just because it's old doesn't mean its entertainment value has diminished."
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
National Nonprofit Survey
From the Nonprofit Finance Fund, reported by a press release.
An excerpt.
“New York, NY – March 21, 2011 – America's nonprofits are expecting 2011 to be another tough year for their organizations, and for the people they serve, according to a survey released today by Nonprofit Finance Fund (NFF), with support from the Bank of America Charitable Foundation. The survey of more than 1,900 nonprofit leaders in markets nationwide found that while there are some signs of hope, many nonprofits are straining under year-after-year increases in the demand for services.”
An excerpt.
“New York, NY – March 21, 2011 – America's nonprofits are expecting 2011 to be another tough year for their organizations, and for the people they serve, according to a survey released today by Nonprofit Finance Fund (NFF), with support from the Bank of America Charitable Foundation. The survey of more than 1,900 nonprofit leaders in markets nationwide found that while there are some signs of hope, many nonprofits are straining under year-after-year increases in the demand for services.”
Monday, March 21, 2011
Google Helps Nonprofits
In addition to the wonderful service of providing free blogging technology, as they do for this blog, Google provides much more to nonprofits, as this article from Fast Company notes.
An excerpt.
“Google has announced a new program for nonprofits, which they say will include a grant for adwords, exclusive tools, and collaboration forums. "Instead of applying to each Google product individually," nonprofits can apply for a suite of tools here, according to Google's blog post.
“The user-friendly site, Google.com/nonprofits, looks like it aims to simplify and educate how nonprofits can use the wide array of google products for their organization..”
An excerpt.
“Google has announced a new program for nonprofits, which they say will include a grant for adwords, exclusive tools, and collaboration forums. "Instead of applying to each Google product individually," nonprofits can apply for a suite of tools here, according to Google's blog post.
“The user-friendly site, Google.com/nonprofits, looks like it aims to simplify and educate how nonprofits can use the wide array of google products for their organization..”
Friday, March 18, 2011
Strategic Planning
A recent two part article, here and here, about strategic planning, concluding it is not all that important—unless it is done for the right reasons and in the right way—generated a rebuttal from a consultant who facilitates strategic planning, as do I, which captures the need for it wisely, in this article from The Blue Avocado.
An excerpt.
“I am an unapologetic advocate of traditional strategic planning.
“I have to admit I am not a disinterested party in this debate. As a consultant with nonprofits for the last twenty years, much of my work has been done under the umbrella of strategic planning. I continue to do this work because I believe strategic planning is both necessary and provides a unique contribution to nonprofit organization effectiveness. In this piece and from this perspective, I respond to some of the major complaints about strategic planning that were outlined in Blue Avocado's critique.
“Strategic planning is made irrelevant by major shifts in the environment.
“Funding was cut for some of my clients by 20% to 40% in 2009. In the cases where these clients had recently completed strategic plans, they had frameworks that were incredibly helpful in making a series of very difficult decisions in a short period of time. Why were these frameworks so helpful? Because they had clarity about their most important priorities and values. In some cases it accelerated planned actions, such as closing a program or organization restructuring facilitated by laying off unproductive staff. In other cases it just helped in making painful decisions that, if resources had remained constant, they would much preferred not to have made.
“Strategic planning is pushed by expensive consultants.
“My neighbor Sean is a plumber. He is a very good plumber and has never let me down. I have hired bad plumbers and know what that's like. He is "expensive" in that he charges more than many other plumbers, and certainly more expensive than the out-of-pocket cost of doing it myself. But when I think about the cost in time and money, let alone the hassle and frustration of the job being done wrong (which is often the case when I do it myself), I find that Sean is a very good value.
"Expensive" is a relative term. What defines an "expensive consultant"? Even spending a few months poorly is a very expensive undertaking when one thinks about how scarce the major resource of most organizations is: the time of staff and board members. Alternatively, developing a clear strategic plan that has board and staff energized and focused can help people move mountains.
“Strategic planning takes a long time.
“I have done strategic planning work with a dozen organizations in the past two years. The cost ranged from $3,600 (where I coached a very sophisticated executive director) to over $60,000 where a great deal of research was required and an unusual amount of stakeholder engagement was desired. The time required ranged from a few months to almost two years. The $3,600 project took 18 months -- in large part because the plan was built around a very large capital campaign and needed a very high level of support from many, many key constituents before the plan could be "approved." The time it takes to do strategic planning is highly flexible and should be determined by the needs of the organization.
“Strategic planning is too often driven by funders.
“The role of funders in trying to support improvements in organizational effectiveness is hotly debated. The reason I believe many funders often ask for (and occasionally insist on) a strategic plan is entirely understandable: they want to know what an organization is trying to do and how it plans to do it. They also want to know that the leadership of an organization is intentional about its work and have taken the trouble to engage its constituencies meaningfully in the broader vision and strategy. A plan in this case is a proxy. (And, if an organization does not have a strategic plan document, but is truly clear about its priorities, strategies, resources, governance, etc., a document can be produced in a matter of days.)”
An excerpt.
“I am an unapologetic advocate of traditional strategic planning.
“I have to admit I am not a disinterested party in this debate. As a consultant with nonprofits for the last twenty years, much of my work has been done under the umbrella of strategic planning. I continue to do this work because I believe strategic planning is both necessary and provides a unique contribution to nonprofit organization effectiveness. In this piece and from this perspective, I respond to some of the major complaints about strategic planning that were outlined in Blue Avocado's critique.
“Strategic planning is made irrelevant by major shifts in the environment.
“Funding was cut for some of my clients by 20% to 40% in 2009. In the cases where these clients had recently completed strategic plans, they had frameworks that were incredibly helpful in making a series of very difficult decisions in a short period of time. Why were these frameworks so helpful? Because they had clarity about their most important priorities and values. In some cases it accelerated planned actions, such as closing a program or organization restructuring facilitated by laying off unproductive staff. In other cases it just helped in making painful decisions that, if resources had remained constant, they would much preferred not to have made.
“Strategic planning is pushed by expensive consultants.
“My neighbor Sean is a plumber. He is a very good plumber and has never let me down. I have hired bad plumbers and know what that's like. He is "expensive" in that he charges more than many other plumbers, and certainly more expensive than the out-of-pocket cost of doing it myself. But when I think about the cost in time and money, let alone the hassle and frustration of the job being done wrong (which is often the case when I do it myself), I find that Sean is a very good value.
"Expensive" is a relative term. What defines an "expensive consultant"? Even spending a few months poorly is a very expensive undertaking when one thinks about how scarce the major resource of most organizations is: the time of staff and board members. Alternatively, developing a clear strategic plan that has board and staff energized and focused can help people move mountains.
“Strategic planning takes a long time.
“I have done strategic planning work with a dozen organizations in the past two years. The cost ranged from $3,600 (where I coached a very sophisticated executive director) to over $60,000 where a great deal of research was required and an unusual amount of stakeholder engagement was desired. The time required ranged from a few months to almost two years. The $3,600 project took 18 months -- in large part because the plan was built around a very large capital campaign and needed a very high level of support from many, many key constituents before the plan could be "approved." The time it takes to do strategic planning is highly flexible and should be determined by the needs of the organization.
“Strategic planning is too often driven by funders.
“The role of funders in trying to support improvements in organizational effectiveness is hotly debated. The reason I believe many funders often ask for (and occasionally insist on) a strategic plan is entirely understandable: they want to know what an organization is trying to do and how it plans to do it. They also want to know that the leadership of an organization is intentional about its work and have taken the trouble to engage its constituencies meaningfully in the broader vision and strategy. A plan in this case is a proxy. (And, if an organization does not have a strategic plan document, but is truly clear about its priorities, strategies, resources, governance, etc., a document can be produced in a matter of days.)”
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Nonprofit Governance
This article from the Nonprofit Quarterly describes a reality long evident within public administration and addressed in previous works such as the book by Goldsmith and Eggers (2004) Governing by Network: The New Shape of the Public Sector.
An excerpt from the Nonprofit Quarterly article.
“Many members of the nonprofit world have expressed concern that the sector has not developed new forms of governance. We have not, they complain, seen anything more than a minor variation on current designs and practices. For some time, I shared this perspective. But then I realized that this is not exactly true. We have created the “new nonprofit governance” at a new level within our communities. But we have not identified this shift because we’re so focused on the artifact that we know as “the board.”
“It used to be that boards and governance were substantially the same: the two concepts overlapped. But with time and a radically changing environment (e.g., changes in complexity, pace, scale, and nature of community problems and needs), the domain of “governance” has moved beyond the domain of “the board.” Though never stated in this way, governance and boards have greatly diverged in many of the settings where we address our most complex and demanding community needs. But in these complex environments, boards of individual organizations serve the functions of governance less and less well.
“In these environs, governance truly is leadership. And in this new generation of governance, which has most actively evolved in segments of the nonprofit sector where agencies strive to address these complex challenges, nonprofit boards are merely one element and no longer the primary “home” of the governance processes by which we address our most critical community issues.
“The scale of these complex problems has outgrown the capacity of our existing free¬standing organizations to respond—sometimes in terms of size, but especially, and more important, in terms of complexity and dynamism. Therefore, we’ve organized or developed our response at yet another level: the interorganizational alliance.
“In the new mode, the organization may well be the unit from which services are delivered, but such service delivery is designed, organized, resourced, and coordinated (in other words, governed) by the overarching network of relationships (among organizational leaders) that crosses and links all participating organizations and entities. Similar dynamics have emerged in some parts of the nonprofit policy and advocacy domain, where different organizations’ actions are orchestrated by a coordinated governance process that operates largely beyond the scope of any particular board, even as it deploys lobbying resources from various individual organizations.
“THE NEW NONPROFIT GOVERNANCE MODEL
“Governance is a function, and a board is a structure—and, as it turns out, a decreasingly central structure in the issue of new or alternative forms of governance. Don’t get me wrong; boards are still important in nonprofit governance. But, for many key community problems and issues, they’re not always appropriate as the unit of focus.
“Governance processes—processes of decision making concerning action based on and grounded in a shared sense of mission, vision, and purpose—include the functions of setting strategic direction and setting priorities; developing and allocating resources; adopting and applying rules of interunit engagement and relationships; and implementing an ongoing system of quality assurance that applies to all constituent organizations.
“In many key areas, these processes have moved above and beyond any individual nonprofit organization. If organizations do not work as an integral part of this larger whole, they don’t get to join or stay in the game.”
An excerpt from the Nonprofit Quarterly article.
“Many members of the nonprofit world have expressed concern that the sector has not developed new forms of governance. We have not, they complain, seen anything more than a minor variation on current designs and practices. For some time, I shared this perspective. But then I realized that this is not exactly true. We have created the “new nonprofit governance” at a new level within our communities. But we have not identified this shift because we’re so focused on the artifact that we know as “the board.”
“It used to be that boards and governance were substantially the same: the two concepts overlapped. But with time and a radically changing environment (e.g., changes in complexity, pace, scale, and nature of community problems and needs), the domain of “governance” has moved beyond the domain of “the board.” Though never stated in this way, governance and boards have greatly diverged in many of the settings where we address our most complex and demanding community needs. But in these complex environments, boards of individual organizations serve the functions of governance less and less well.
“In these environs, governance truly is leadership. And in this new generation of governance, which has most actively evolved in segments of the nonprofit sector where agencies strive to address these complex challenges, nonprofit boards are merely one element and no longer the primary “home” of the governance processes by which we address our most critical community issues.
“The scale of these complex problems has outgrown the capacity of our existing free¬standing organizations to respond—sometimes in terms of size, but especially, and more important, in terms of complexity and dynamism. Therefore, we’ve organized or developed our response at yet another level: the interorganizational alliance.
“In the new mode, the organization may well be the unit from which services are delivered, but such service delivery is designed, organized, resourced, and coordinated (in other words, governed) by the overarching network of relationships (among organizational leaders) that crosses and links all participating organizations and entities. Similar dynamics have emerged in some parts of the nonprofit policy and advocacy domain, where different organizations’ actions are orchestrated by a coordinated governance process that operates largely beyond the scope of any particular board, even as it deploys lobbying resources from various individual organizations.
“THE NEW NONPROFIT GOVERNANCE MODEL
“Governance is a function, and a board is a structure—and, as it turns out, a decreasingly central structure in the issue of new or alternative forms of governance. Don’t get me wrong; boards are still important in nonprofit governance. But, for many key community problems and issues, they’re not always appropriate as the unit of focus.
“Governance processes—processes of decision making concerning action based on and grounded in a shared sense of mission, vision, and purpose—include the functions of setting strategic direction and setting priorities; developing and allocating resources; adopting and applying rules of interunit engagement and relationships; and implementing an ongoing system of quality assurance that applies to all constituent organizations.
“In many key areas, these processes have moved above and beyond any individual nonprofit organization. If organizations do not work as an integral part of this larger whole, they don’t get to join or stay in the game.”
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Light on Nonprofits
Paul Light is one of the more astute observers of the nonprofit sector and his recent article in the Washington Post examines the current winnowing of the sector—especially among small grassroots organizations—resulting from the tightening of government funding which all too many of the small groups are dependent on.
An excerpt.
“The nation's nonprofit sector is a leading indicator of economic collapse and recovery. It tightens first as anxious donors hold onto their dollars, and rebounds last as anxieties finally fade.
“In between the starts and stops, the sector bears the brunt of increasing demand, budget cuts and delayed payments. Reserves begin to disappear, credit lines evaporate and volunteers become clients. Asked to do much more with far less, many nonprofits end up trying to do almost everything with nothing.
“The nonprofit sector is not about to disappear, of course. It's a major industry in its own right with 11 million employees, 63 million volunteers and $1.5 trillion in annual income.
“Nevertheless, there is growing evidence that many nonprofits closed their doors over the past three years, while others are about to do so. In 2008, I estimated that 100,000 of the nation's 1 million tax-exempt nonprofits could go under during the recession. Those exits may or may not be offset by the creation of new nonprofits, but there seems to be little doubt that much of the deforestation is now occurring in low-income communities where service deserts are swallowing up thousands of relatively small community-based organizations. If we could map decimation by census tracks, we'd see the deserts popping up in all the familiar neighborhoods--the ones where the most vulnerable Americans live.”
An excerpt.
“The nation's nonprofit sector is a leading indicator of economic collapse and recovery. It tightens first as anxious donors hold onto their dollars, and rebounds last as anxieties finally fade.
“In between the starts and stops, the sector bears the brunt of increasing demand, budget cuts and delayed payments. Reserves begin to disappear, credit lines evaporate and volunteers become clients. Asked to do much more with far less, many nonprofits end up trying to do almost everything with nothing.
“The nonprofit sector is not about to disappear, of course. It's a major industry in its own right with 11 million employees, 63 million volunteers and $1.5 trillion in annual income.
“Nevertheless, there is growing evidence that many nonprofits closed their doors over the past three years, while others are about to do so. In 2008, I estimated that 100,000 of the nation's 1 million tax-exempt nonprofits could go under during the recession. Those exits may or may not be offset by the creation of new nonprofits, but there seems to be little doubt that much of the deforestation is now occurring in low-income communities where service deserts are swallowing up thousands of relatively small community-based organizations. If we could map decimation by census tracks, we'd see the deserts popping up in all the familiar neighborhoods--the ones where the most vulnerable Americans live.”
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Evaluation in Nonprofits
It is becoming even more important, and that is a very good thing, as funding shrinks and demands for program accountability increase.
This post from the Nonprofit Quarterly News Wire examines the problem of finding some common ground in evaluations.
An excerpt.
“Foundation and government funders are increasingly demanding that nonprofits produce rigorous evaluations designed to demonstrate the validity and sometimes replicability of their programs and projects. What they don't often do is help nonprofits – affordably –generate evaluations that are useful to practitioners and communities to improve the programs being evaluated.
“The nonprofit Public/Private Ventures has issued a new white paper with some useful thoughts to provoke a higher-level dialogue about nonprofit evaluation. Although clearly supportive of randomized evaluations using control groups that do not receive program services compared to those that do, P/PV is clear that there can't be a one-size-fits-all approach.
“As an alternative, P/PV suggests the following: providing an array of alternative evaluation approaches when a randomized control group approach isn't feasible; developing "common systems of evaluative information at a reasonable cost"; developing (more) rigorous standards for scaling and replication (a common objective of randomized evaluation models); and getting practitioners into the process of designing evaluations so that the processes won't be excessively burdensome to nonprofit staff and the products might be likely to yield program improvements.”
This post from the Nonprofit Quarterly News Wire examines the problem of finding some common ground in evaluations.
An excerpt.
“Foundation and government funders are increasingly demanding that nonprofits produce rigorous evaluations designed to demonstrate the validity and sometimes replicability of their programs and projects. What they don't often do is help nonprofits – affordably –generate evaluations that are useful to practitioners and communities to improve the programs being evaluated.
“The nonprofit Public/Private Ventures has issued a new white paper with some useful thoughts to provoke a higher-level dialogue about nonprofit evaluation. Although clearly supportive of randomized evaluations using control groups that do not receive program services compared to those that do, P/PV is clear that there can't be a one-size-fits-all approach.
“As an alternative, P/PV suggests the following: providing an array of alternative evaluation approaches when a randomized control group approach isn't feasible; developing "common systems of evaluative information at a reasonable cost"; developing (more) rigorous standards for scaling and replication (a common objective of randomized evaluation models); and getting practitioners into the process of designing evaluations so that the processes won't be excessively burdensome to nonprofit staff and the products might be likely to yield program improvements.”
Monday, March 14, 2011
Donor Privacy
Bemoaning donor privacy during the process of acquiring nonprofit status, as this article from the Washington Post does, does not mention the American tradition of protecting donor privacy as part of the overall right to privacy Americans come to expect in much of their daily life, and that omission somewhat negates their argument.
An excerpt.
“American Crossroads GPS, an advocacy group that reported spending about $17 million on advertising before the midterm elections, generated controversy by using its nonprofit status to shield donors' identities.
“As it turns out, the Internal Revenue Service hasn't even approved the group's nonprofit status. Crossroads filed an application in September but the agency has not acted on it.
“That's not a problem as far as the law is concerned - the tax code allows an organization to operate as a nonprofit before it receives such status. Many groups do not file the paperwork until it is time to send in their first tax return.
“The issue is more than a matter of paperwork, however. Watchdog groups say that Crossroads and other groups active in campaigns are taking advantage of lax IRS enforcement to offer political donors anonymity.”
An excerpt.
“American Crossroads GPS, an advocacy group that reported spending about $17 million on advertising before the midterm elections, generated controversy by using its nonprofit status to shield donors' identities.
“As it turns out, the Internal Revenue Service hasn't even approved the group's nonprofit status. Crossroads filed an application in September but the agency has not acted on it.
“That's not a problem as far as the law is concerned - the tax code allows an organization to operate as a nonprofit before it receives such status. Many groups do not file the paperwork until it is time to send in their first tax return.
“The issue is more than a matter of paperwork, however. Watchdog groups say that Crossroads and other groups active in campaigns are taking advantage of lax IRS enforcement to offer political donors anonymity.”
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Board Community Reach
Following up on yesterday’s post about boards, today’s post is about the community reach of individual board members, a very good quality to examine when recruiting, and the impact that can have on the board.
This article from Stanford Social Innovation Review examines that.
An excerpt.
“I am convinced that skill at fundraising and governance alone do not an excellent board member make. Nor do such skills alone ensure that a nonprofit organization maintains a durable, deep connection to the wider community it serves.
“A third skill—I call it civic reach—distinguishes a great board member from a merely adequate one, a world-class nonprofit from one that is simply functioning. Take a couple of examples: Back in 2005, Rochester Area Community Foundation’s (RACF) smart, highly engaged board had few well-known civic leaders. With the guidance of Jennifer Leonard, the foundation’s president and executive director, RACF aimed to become greater Rochester, N.Y.’s “catalyst for community change” and realized that movers and shakers could extend the institution’s influence. RACF added to its board the CEO of the city’s chamber of commerce, the CEO of a leading advertising company, the area’s school board president, a noted venture capitalist, a former United Way campaign chair, and the head of Rochester’s downtown development group. In just one of the positive outcomes, the chamber incorporated RACF’s recommendations into its annual state advocacy platform, resulting in $7.8 million in restored child care subsidies, plus crucial support for after-school funding.
“In another example, the board of directors of Make-A-Wish Foundation International, a nonprofit devoted to granting the wishes of children with life-threatening medical conditions, shifted its composition to achieve a worldwide leadership profile. Previously, the organization was governed by chapter affiliate representatives from various countries, a decidedly internal focus. The new board boasts a powerful cadre of business leaders with the prestige, power, and contacts to open doors worldwide. Two board members illustrate this new heft. Jim Fielding, president of Disney Stores Worldwide, connects Make-A-Wish to Europe, Asia, and North America, prime markets for both Disney merchandising and Make-A-Wish civic engagement. Tim Kilpin, general manager and senior vice president for Mattel Brands, provides Make-A-Wish with cash contributions from the company’s toy sales and facilitates business relationships through its worldwide network. Savvy, connected players like Fielding and Kilpin—people with profound civic reach—serve as global thinkers for charities while they tend to their own business interests. As a result of its new board, Nonprofits must have influential board members who connect them to the communities they serve Make-A-Wish more expertly navigates its corporate and individual relationships, ties its work to corporate social responsibility efforts, attracts a wider range of corporate sponsorship dollars, and manages its wish granting on a worldwide scale.
“POWER TO THE WEAKEST SECTOR
“Board members with civic reach compensate for the inherent limitations of the social sector, arguably democracy’s most critical, yet weakest, arena in terms of money and power. Social ventures generally lack the commercial sector’s profit-driven muscle and the public sector’s power to mandate by law and levy taxes to raise resources. Nonprofits need deep civic roots to thrive. To scale up operations, they need strong relationships with leaders in business, government agencies, and elective office. The sum of every board member’s civic reach is the soil in which those roots grow. Boards anemic in civic reach oversee organizations that are weak in civic relevance and resilience. Such organizations might have a range of funding sources and may run well operationally. But they rarely find themselves plugged into the civic power grid, where decisions about community and individual needs are largely made. Even with success, organizations deficient in civic reach often stand as capable orphans, unaccountably disconnected and alone, wondering why the recognition they think they deserve lies beyond their grasp.”
This article from Stanford Social Innovation Review examines that.
An excerpt.
“I am convinced that skill at fundraising and governance alone do not an excellent board member make. Nor do such skills alone ensure that a nonprofit organization maintains a durable, deep connection to the wider community it serves.
“A third skill—I call it civic reach—distinguishes a great board member from a merely adequate one, a world-class nonprofit from one that is simply functioning. Take a couple of examples: Back in 2005, Rochester Area Community Foundation’s (RACF) smart, highly engaged board had few well-known civic leaders. With the guidance of Jennifer Leonard, the foundation’s president and executive director, RACF aimed to become greater Rochester, N.Y.’s “catalyst for community change” and realized that movers and shakers could extend the institution’s influence. RACF added to its board the CEO of the city’s chamber of commerce, the CEO of a leading advertising company, the area’s school board president, a noted venture capitalist, a former United Way campaign chair, and the head of Rochester’s downtown development group. In just one of the positive outcomes, the chamber incorporated RACF’s recommendations into its annual state advocacy platform, resulting in $7.8 million in restored child care subsidies, plus crucial support for after-school funding.
“In another example, the board of directors of Make-A-Wish Foundation International, a nonprofit devoted to granting the wishes of children with life-threatening medical conditions, shifted its composition to achieve a worldwide leadership profile. Previously, the organization was governed by chapter affiliate representatives from various countries, a decidedly internal focus. The new board boasts a powerful cadre of business leaders with the prestige, power, and contacts to open doors worldwide. Two board members illustrate this new heft. Jim Fielding, president of Disney Stores Worldwide, connects Make-A-Wish to Europe, Asia, and North America, prime markets for both Disney merchandising and Make-A-Wish civic engagement. Tim Kilpin, general manager and senior vice president for Mattel Brands, provides Make-A-Wish with cash contributions from the company’s toy sales and facilitates business relationships through its worldwide network. Savvy, connected players like Fielding and Kilpin—people with profound civic reach—serve as global thinkers for charities while they tend to their own business interests. As a result of its new board, Nonprofits must have influential board members who connect them to the communities they serve Make-A-Wish more expertly navigates its corporate and individual relationships, ties its work to corporate social responsibility efforts, attracts a wider range of corporate sponsorship dollars, and manages its wish granting on a worldwide scale.
“POWER TO THE WEAKEST SECTOR
“Board members with civic reach compensate for the inherent limitations of the social sector, arguably democracy’s most critical, yet weakest, arena in terms of money and power. Social ventures generally lack the commercial sector’s profit-driven muscle and the public sector’s power to mandate by law and levy taxes to raise resources. Nonprofits need deep civic roots to thrive. To scale up operations, they need strong relationships with leaders in business, government agencies, and elective office. The sum of every board member’s civic reach is the soil in which those roots grow. Boards anemic in civic reach oversee organizations that are weak in civic relevance and resilience. Such organizations might have a range of funding sources and may run well operationally. But they rarely find themselves plugged into the civic power grid, where decisions about community and individual needs are largely made. Even with success, organizations deficient in civic reach often stand as capable orphans, unaccountably disconnected and alone, wondering why the recognition they think they deserve lies beyond their grasp.”
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Strategy & Governance
As can be seen in this article from Board Source, the ability to move strategically based on the speed of current events in a 24/7 news cycle world, is crucial, and having that ability requires a good governance strategy.
An excerpt.
“NPR CEO Vivian Schiller resigned today after NPR executive Ron Schiller (no relation to Ms. Schiller) was “stung” by a hidden camera, revealing his biases against the Tea Party. The incident came on the heels of a controversial firing of Juan Williams in 2010.
“The same morning, NPR issued a press release, which read, in part: “According to a CEO succession plan adopted by the Board in 2009, Joyce Slocum, SVP of Legal Affairs and General Counsel, has been appointed to the position of Interim CEO. The Board will immediately establish an Executive Transition Committee that will develop a timeframe and process for the recruitment and selection of new leadership.”
“That’s fast. And guess why they were able to be so nimble? They adopted a succession plan that could be enacted at a moment’s notice. This was that moment. How many boards tell themselves, “We really need to work on our succession plan”, only to have the day-to-day exigencies of the organization take precedence over something that feels theoretical and nearly impossible-the sudden departure of the CEO.”
An excerpt.
“NPR CEO Vivian Schiller resigned today after NPR executive Ron Schiller (no relation to Ms. Schiller) was “stung” by a hidden camera, revealing his biases against the Tea Party. The incident came on the heels of a controversial firing of Juan Williams in 2010.
“The same morning, NPR issued a press release, which read, in part: “According to a CEO succession plan adopted by the Board in 2009, Joyce Slocum, SVP of Legal Affairs and General Counsel, has been appointed to the position of Interim CEO. The Board will immediately establish an Executive Transition Committee that will develop a timeframe and process for the recruitment and selection of new leadership.”
“That’s fast. And guess why they were able to be so nimble? They adopted a succession plan that could be enacted at a moment’s notice. This was that moment. How many boards tell themselves, “We really need to work on our succession plan”, only to have the day-to-day exigencies of the organization take precedence over something that feels theoretical and nearly impossible-the sudden departure of the CEO.”
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
The Gates Family, American Philanthropists
Their philanthropy is extraordinary, as this article from Reuters reports.
An excerpt.
“(Reuters) - Bill Gates didn't lose his title as the world's richest man last year; he gave it away by plowing billions into his charitable foundation, experts say.
“Forbes will release its 2011 billionaires list on Wednesday and Gates, investor Warren Buffett and last year's richest man, Mexican tycoon Carlos Slim, will almost certainly be in the top three. The trio have topped the list for the past five years.
“But it would be no contest if Microsoft co-founder Gates had not already given away more than a third of his wealth to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which focuses on global health and development and U.S. education.
"It wouldn't be a competition," said David Lincoln, director of global valuations at wealth research firm Wealth-X. "(Gates) would have a comfortable margin if he had never discovered philanthropy."
“Lincoln said Gates was currently worth about $49 billion, behind Slim, whose fortune he estimated at $60 billion. Buffett, also a philanthropist, is now worth some $47 billion.
“But had Gates not given away any money, he would be worth $88 billion, Lincoln said.
“Gates and his wife Melinda have so far given $28 billion to their foundation, the largest in the United States.”
An excerpt.
“(Reuters) - Bill Gates didn't lose his title as the world's richest man last year; he gave it away by plowing billions into his charitable foundation, experts say.
“Forbes will release its 2011 billionaires list on Wednesday and Gates, investor Warren Buffett and last year's richest man, Mexican tycoon Carlos Slim, will almost certainly be in the top three. The trio have topped the list for the past five years.
“But it would be no contest if Microsoft co-founder Gates had not already given away more than a third of his wealth to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which focuses on global health and development and U.S. education.
"It wouldn't be a competition," said David Lincoln, director of global valuations at wealth research firm Wealth-X. "(Gates) would have a comfortable margin if he had never discovered philanthropy."
“Lincoln said Gates was currently worth about $49 billion, behind Slim, whose fortune he estimated at $60 billion. Buffett, also a philanthropist, is now worth some $47 billion.
“But had Gates not given away any money, he would be worth $88 billion, Lincoln said.
“Gates and his wife Melinda have so far given $28 billion to their foundation, the largest in the United States.”
Monday, March 7, 2011
Working with the Homeless
Thoreau is often claimed by those who are homeless by choice, as their patron saint, though his perspective is congruent with that of Saint-Exupery—who would never be claimed as a patron saint by the homeless.
Here is Thoreau on the poor.
“Be sure that you give the poor the aid they most need, though it be your example which leaves them far behind. If you give money, spend yourself with it, and do not merely abandon it to them. We make curious mistakes sometimes. Often the poor man is not so cold and hungry as he is dirty and ragged and gross. It is partly his taste, and not merely his misfortune. If you give him money, he will perhaps buy more rags with it. I was wont to pity the clumsy Irish laborers who cut ice on the pond, in such mean and ragged clothes, while I shivered in my more tidy and somewhat more fashionable garments, till, one bitter cold day, one who had slipped into the water came to my house to warm him, and I saw him strip off three pairs of pants and two pairs of stockings ere he got down to the skin, though they were dirty and ragged enough, it is true, and that he could afford to refuse the extra garments which I offered him, he had so many intra ones. This ducking was the very thing he needed. Then I began to pity myself, and I saw that it would be a greater charity to bestow on me a flannel shirt than a whole slop-shop on him. There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root, and it may be that he who bestows the largest amount of time and money on the needy is doing the most by his mode of life to produce that misery which he strives in vain to relieve.
(Thoreau, H. D. (1854). Walden. New York: Book-of-the-Month Club, (1996) pp. 97-98)
Here is Saint-Exupery.
“All too often have I seen pity led astray. But we who govern men have learnt to plumb their hearts, and we bestow compassion only on what is worthy of our concern. No pity waste I on the shrilly voiced afflictions that fret women’s hearts. As I withhold it from the dying and from the dead. And I know wherefore.
“A time there was, in my young days, when I pitied beggars and their sores. I hired physicians and procured balsams for them. Caravans from a far-off island brought me those rare unguents laced with gold that mend the torn skin above the flesh. Thus did I until the day when I discovered that beggars cling to their stench as to something rare and precious. For I had caught them scratching away their scabs and smearing their bodies with dung, like the husbandman who spreads manure over his garden plot, so as to wean from it the crimson flower. Vying with each other, they flaunted their corruption, and bragged of the alms they wrung from the tender-hearted. He who wheedled most likened himself to a high priest bringing forth from the shrine his goodliest idol for all to gape at and heap with offerings. When they deigned to consult my physicians, it was in the hope that the hugeness and virulence of their cankers would astound him. And how nimbly they shuffled their stumps to have room made for them in the market places! Thus they took the kindness done them for a homage, proffering their limbs to unctions that flattered their self-esteem.
“But no sooner were they healed than they found themselves of no account, like barren soil that feeds nothing; and they made haste to revive the ulcers that formerly had battened on their flesh. Then, clad once more in a motley of scabs and sores, they strutted it, begging-bowl in hand, and squatted beside the caravan road where, crying up their noisome gods, they levied tribute of the wayfarers.”
(Saint-Exupery, A. (1950). The Wisdom of the Sands. New York: Harcourt, Brace and company. pp. 3-4)
Here is Thoreau on the poor.
“Be sure that you give the poor the aid they most need, though it be your example which leaves them far behind. If you give money, spend yourself with it, and do not merely abandon it to them. We make curious mistakes sometimes. Often the poor man is not so cold and hungry as he is dirty and ragged and gross. It is partly his taste, and not merely his misfortune. If you give him money, he will perhaps buy more rags with it. I was wont to pity the clumsy Irish laborers who cut ice on the pond, in such mean and ragged clothes, while I shivered in my more tidy and somewhat more fashionable garments, till, one bitter cold day, one who had slipped into the water came to my house to warm him, and I saw him strip off three pairs of pants and two pairs of stockings ere he got down to the skin, though they were dirty and ragged enough, it is true, and that he could afford to refuse the extra garments which I offered him, he had so many intra ones. This ducking was the very thing he needed. Then I began to pity myself, and I saw that it would be a greater charity to bestow on me a flannel shirt than a whole slop-shop on him. There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root, and it may be that he who bestows the largest amount of time and money on the needy is doing the most by his mode of life to produce that misery which he strives in vain to relieve.
(Thoreau, H. D. (1854). Walden. New York: Book-of-the-Month Club, (1996) pp. 97-98)
Here is Saint-Exupery.
“All too often have I seen pity led astray. But we who govern men have learnt to plumb their hearts, and we bestow compassion only on what is worthy of our concern. No pity waste I on the shrilly voiced afflictions that fret women’s hearts. As I withhold it from the dying and from the dead. And I know wherefore.
“A time there was, in my young days, when I pitied beggars and their sores. I hired physicians and procured balsams for them. Caravans from a far-off island brought me those rare unguents laced with gold that mend the torn skin above the flesh. Thus did I until the day when I discovered that beggars cling to their stench as to something rare and precious. For I had caught them scratching away their scabs and smearing their bodies with dung, like the husbandman who spreads manure over his garden plot, so as to wean from it the crimson flower. Vying with each other, they flaunted their corruption, and bragged of the alms they wrung from the tender-hearted. He who wheedled most likened himself to a high priest bringing forth from the shrine his goodliest idol for all to gape at and heap with offerings. When they deigned to consult my physicians, it was in the hope that the hugeness and virulence of their cankers would astound him. And how nimbly they shuffled their stumps to have room made for them in the market places! Thus they took the kindness done them for a homage, proffering their limbs to unctions that flattered their self-esteem.
“But no sooner were they healed than they found themselves of no account, like barren soil that feeds nothing; and they made haste to revive the ulcers that formerly had battened on their flesh. Then, clad once more in a motley of scabs and sores, they strutted it, begging-bowl in hand, and squatted beside the caravan road where, crying up their noisome gods, they levied tribute of the wayfarers.”
(Saint-Exupery, A. (1950). The Wisdom of the Sands. New York: Harcourt, Brace and company. pp. 3-4)
Friday, March 4, 2011
Public Pensions
An article from the California Chamber of Commerce, reporting on a Little Hoover Commission report, that if followed, would impact public pensions substantially, might also impact those from the nonprofit sector.
An excerpt.
“(March 4, 2011) With the debate over public sector pension costs roiling the nation, a bipartisan, independent state commission released a report charting a bold path for pension reforms that would create both short- and long-term budget savings.
“The Little Hoover Commission unanimously adopted Public Pensions for Retirement Security, calling for legislative action to establish the legal authority to allow state and local governments to freeze pension benefits for current workers, and allowing those workers to accrue future benefits under more sustainable pension plans.
“Reform for Current Workforce
“After 10 months of public hearings and background research, commissioners concluded that California’s pension crisis cannot be solved without addressing the obligations of current employees, many of whom have accrued generous benefits augmented during the go-go years of the dot.com and real estate bubbles.
“Without doubt, the proposal will face significant political and legal hurdles. But ignoring the burden that the current obligations place on government budgets and on taxpayers is like pretending the underwater earthquake won’t create a tsunami. The disaster will happen; the only question is how soon. In the words of the commission’s report, “Pension costs will crush government.”
“The commission included a number of forward-looking reforms, too. It recommended a “hybrid” pension model that combines a lower defined-benefit pension formula with an employer-matched and risk-managed defined-contribution plan.
“The commission also suggested that the state explore extending Social Security old-age benefits to uncovered state and local employees, as is the case with the federal workforce.”
An excerpt.
“(March 4, 2011) With the debate over public sector pension costs roiling the nation, a bipartisan, independent state commission released a report charting a bold path for pension reforms that would create both short- and long-term budget savings.
“The Little Hoover Commission unanimously adopted Public Pensions for Retirement Security, calling for legislative action to establish the legal authority to allow state and local governments to freeze pension benefits for current workers, and allowing those workers to accrue future benefits under more sustainable pension plans.
“Reform for Current Workforce
“After 10 months of public hearings and background research, commissioners concluded that California’s pension crisis cannot be solved without addressing the obligations of current employees, many of whom have accrued generous benefits augmented during the go-go years of the dot.com and real estate bubbles.
“Without doubt, the proposal will face significant political and legal hurdles. But ignoring the burden that the current obligations place on government budgets and on taxpayers is like pretending the underwater earthquake won’t create a tsunami. The disaster will happen; the only question is how soon. In the words of the commission’s report, “Pension costs will crush government.”
“The commission included a number of forward-looking reforms, too. It recommended a “hybrid” pension model that combines a lower defined-benefit pension formula with an employer-matched and risk-managed defined-contribution plan.
“The commission also suggested that the state explore extending Social Security old-age benefits to uncovered state and local employees, as is the case with the federal workforce.”
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Nonprofit Infrastructure & Creativity
This is a thoughtful article about arts nonprofits but applicable to any nonprofit struggling with issues of developing infrastructure and still remaining creatively engaged in mission fulfillment, from the Nonprofit Quarterly.
An excerpt.
“For some time, we’ve sung the “How do we stabilize the arts community?” blues. For at least 20 years now, we’ve been rewriting that song’s lyrics. But now, maybe it’s time to change the music.
“In 1990, I became an arts administrator, and in 1992, I became the associate director of ARTS Inc., Los Angeles’s only service provider that focused on small and medium-size organizations in all artistic disciplines. During that time, I cut my consulting teeth on the National Endowment for the Arts Challenge and Advancement program as an organizational assessor and, later, as a consultant.
“After moving up the ranks to executive director and then leaving the organization in 1997, I launched my own consulting practice to work with arts organizations with operating budgets of less than $1 million. Working in this part of the arts community often feels like living on the wrong side of the consulting tracks. Most of my colleagues—who have gone on to work with high-profile clients: funders, institutions, policy makers, and even for-profit corporations—now find little in common with me.
“Despite intolerably scarce resources (especially for organizational consultants), I stay in this artistic neighborhood because artists maintain a close relationship with the artistic product. They are not afraid of creative challenges; there’s no shortage of energy, commitment, and leadership; their ability to problem-solve is humbling; and my services and skills are desperately needed. As a consultant, I am a part and an observer of this community; which continues to produce work and remains relatively consistent despite political and social upheaval, public and private philanthropic cutbacks, artistic red alerts, and corporate change. This community is fearless, resilient, and inspirational almost daily.
“Still, these groups struggle with a conundrum that often saps their creativity: if they are mired in operational problems created by traditional mandates to build infrastructure and engage in strategic planning for the future, how can they maintain the spontaneity that fuels their craft?”
An excerpt.
“For some time, we’ve sung the “How do we stabilize the arts community?” blues. For at least 20 years now, we’ve been rewriting that song’s lyrics. But now, maybe it’s time to change the music.
“In 1990, I became an arts administrator, and in 1992, I became the associate director of ARTS Inc., Los Angeles’s only service provider that focused on small and medium-size organizations in all artistic disciplines. During that time, I cut my consulting teeth on the National Endowment for the Arts Challenge and Advancement program as an organizational assessor and, later, as a consultant.
“After moving up the ranks to executive director and then leaving the organization in 1997, I launched my own consulting practice to work with arts organizations with operating budgets of less than $1 million. Working in this part of the arts community often feels like living on the wrong side of the consulting tracks. Most of my colleagues—who have gone on to work with high-profile clients: funders, institutions, policy makers, and even for-profit corporations—now find little in common with me.
“Despite intolerably scarce resources (especially for organizational consultants), I stay in this artistic neighborhood because artists maintain a close relationship with the artistic product. They are not afraid of creative challenges; there’s no shortage of energy, commitment, and leadership; their ability to problem-solve is humbling; and my services and skills are desperately needed. As a consultant, I am a part and an observer of this community; which continues to produce work and remains relatively consistent despite political and social upheaval, public and private philanthropic cutbacks, artistic red alerts, and corporate change. This community is fearless, resilient, and inspirational almost daily.
“Still, these groups struggle with a conundrum that often saps their creativity: if they are mired in operational problems created by traditional mandates to build infrastructure and engage in strategic planning for the future, how can they maintain the spontaneity that fuels their craft?”
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Good Men
The nonprofit sector has traditionally been the place in the American working world where women have taken the lead, and that lead has now extended into other areas of life, leaving many to ask the question which is the title of this article in the Wall Street Journal, Where Have The Good Men Gone?
An excerpt.
“Not so long ago, the average American man in his 20s had achieved most of the milestones of adulthood: a high-school diploma, financial independence, marriage and children. Today, most men in their 20s hang out in a novel sort of limbo, a hybrid state of semi-hormonal adolescence and responsible self-reliance. This "pre-adulthood" has much to recommend it, especially for the college-educated. But it's time to state what has become obvious to legions of frustrated young women: It doesn't bring out the best in men.
"We are sick of hooking up with guys," writes the comedian Julie Klausner, author of a touchingly funny 2010 book, "I Don't Care About Your Band: What I Learned from Indie Rockers, Trust Funders, Pornographers, Felons, Faux-Sensitive Hipsters and Other Guys I've Dated." What Ms. Klausner means by "guys" is males who are not boys or men but something in between. "Guys talk about 'Star Wars' like it's not a movie made for people half their age; a guy's idea of a perfect night is a hang around the PlayStation with his bandmates, or a trip to Vegas with his college friends.... They are more like the kids we babysat than the dads who drove us home." One female reviewer of Ms. Kausner's book wrote, "I had to stop several times while reading and think: Wait, did I date this same guy?"
“For most of us, the cultural habitat of pre-adulthood no longer seems noteworthy. After all, popular culture has been crowded with pre-adults for almost two decades. Hollywood started the affair in the early 1990s with movies like "Singles," "Reality Bites," "Single White Female" and "Swingers." Television soon deepened the relationship, giving us the agreeable company of Monica, Joey, Rachel and Ross; Jerry, Elaine, George and Kramer; Carrie, Miranda, et al.
“But for all its familiarity, pre-adulthood represents a momentous sociological development. It's no exaggeration to say that having large numbers of single young men and women living independently, while also having enough disposable income to avoid ever messing up their kitchens, is something entirely new in human experience. Yes, at other points in Western history young people have waited well into their 20s to marry, and yes, office girls and bachelor lawyers have been working and finding amusement in cities for more than a century. But their numbers and their money supply were always relatively small. Today's pre-adults are a different matter. They are a major demographic event.
“What also makes pre-adulthood something new is its radical reversal of the sexual hierarchy. Among pre-adults, women are the first sex. They graduate from college in greater numbers (among Americans ages 25 to 34, 34% of women now have a bachelor's degree but just 27% of men), and they have higher GPAs. As most professors tell it, they also have more confidence and drive. These strengths carry women through their 20s, when they are more likely than men to be in grad school and making strides in the workplace. In a number of cities, they are even out-earning their brothers and boyfriends.
“Still, for these women, one key question won't go away: Where have the good men gone? Their male peers often come across as aging frat boys, maladroit geeks or grubby slackers—a gender gap neatly crystallized by the director Judd Apatow in his hit 2007 movie "Knocked Up." The story's hero is 23-year-old Ben Stone (Seth Rogen), who has a drunken fling with Allison Scott (Katherine Heigl) and gets her pregnant. Ben lives in a Los Angeles crash pad with a group of grubby friends who spend their days playing videogames, smoking pot and unsuccessfully planning to launch a porn website. Allison, by contrast, is on her way up as a television reporter and lives in a neatly kept apartment with what appear to be clean sheets and towels. Once she decides to have the baby, she figures out what needs to be done and does it. Ben can only stumble his way toward being a responsible grownup.”
An excerpt.
“Not so long ago, the average American man in his 20s had achieved most of the milestones of adulthood: a high-school diploma, financial independence, marriage and children. Today, most men in their 20s hang out in a novel sort of limbo, a hybrid state of semi-hormonal adolescence and responsible self-reliance. This "pre-adulthood" has much to recommend it, especially for the college-educated. But it's time to state what has become obvious to legions of frustrated young women: It doesn't bring out the best in men.
"We are sick of hooking up with guys," writes the comedian Julie Klausner, author of a touchingly funny 2010 book, "I Don't Care About Your Band: What I Learned from Indie Rockers, Trust Funders, Pornographers, Felons, Faux-Sensitive Hipsters and Other Guys I've Dated." What Ms. Klausner means by "guys" is males who are not boys or men but something in between. "Guys talk about 'Star Wars' like it's not a movie made for people half their age; a guy's idea of a perfect night is a hang around the PlayStation with his bandmates, or a trip to Vegas with his college friends.... They are more like the kids we babysat than the dads who drove us home." One female reviewer of Ms. Kausner's book wrote, "I had to stop several times while reading and think: Wait, did I date this same guy?"
“For most of us, the cultural habitat of pre-adulthood no longer seems noteworthy. After all, popular culture has been crowded with pre-adults for almost two decades. Hollywood started the affair in the early 1990s with movies like "Singles," "Reality Bites," "Single White Female" and "Swingers." Television soon deepened the relationship, giving us the agreeable company of Monica, Joey, Rachel and Ross; Jerry, Elaine, George and Kramer; Carrie, Miranda, et al.
“But for all its familiarity, pre-adulthood represents a momentous sociological development. It's no exaggeration to say that having large numbers of single young men and women living independently, while also having enough disposable income to avoid ever messing up their kitchens, is something entirely new in human experience. Yes, at other points in Western history young people have waited well into their 20s to marry, and yes, office girls and bachelor lawyers have been working and finding amusement in cities for more than a century. But their numbers and their money supply were always relatively small. Today's pre-adults are a different matter. They are a major demographic event.
“What also makes pre-adulthood something new is its radical reversal of the sexual hierarchy. Among pre-adults, women are the first sex. They graduate from college in greater numbers (among Americans ages 25 to 34, 34% of women now have a bachelor's degree but just 27% of men), and they have higher GPAs. As most professors tell it, they also have more confidence and drive. These strengths carry women through their 20s, when they are more likely than men to be in grad school and making strides in the workplace. In a number of cities, they are even out-earning their brothers and boyfriends.
“Still, for these women, one key question won't go away: Where have the good men gone? Their male peers often come across as aging frat boys, maladroit geeks or grubby slackers—a gender gap neatly crystallized by the director Judd Apatow in his hit 2007 movie "Knocked Up." The story's hero is 23-year-old Ben Stone (Seth Rogen), who has a drunken fling with Allison Scott (Katherine Heigl) and gets her pregnant. Ben lives in a Los Angeles crash pad with a group of grubby friends who spend their days playing videogames, smoking pot and unsuccessfully planning to launch a porn website. Allison, by contrast, is on her way up as a television reporter and lives in a neatly kept apartment with what appear to be clean sheets and towels. Once she decides to have the baby, she figures out what needs to be done and does it. Ben can only stumble his way toward being a responsible grownup.”
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Bill Shore
He has written some great books about nonprofit work, and this review of his new book from Stanford Social Innovation Review is well worth a read.
An excerpt.
“The eradication of malaria is an “audacious goal,” according to Melinda Gates. “But to aspire to anything less is just far too timid a goal for the age we’re in. It’s a waste of the world’s talent and intelligence, and it’s wrong and unfair to the people who are suffering from this disease.” These words, uttered in 2007 by one of the world’s more admired philanthropists, sum up the spirit of Bill Shore’s latest book, The Imaginations of Unreasonable Men.
“An unabashed enthusiast for technology and social innovation, Shore contrasts a clinician’s obligation to treat individual patients’ symptoms with the work of medical research teams whose mission is to find the cure that can eradicate malaria. It is the approach of this latter group that he argues philanthropists should embrace, urging them to leverage markets to achieve their aim. “When we focus on the one rather than the many, on the symptom rather than the cause, on what we can accomplish on our own rather than on what needs to be accomplished by the broader community, we neglect our greatest opportunities to do the greatest good,” he writes.
“Shore points to the success of low-tech preventive measures, such as the distribution of bed nets. But he notes that malaria continues to take its toll, with the World Health Organization (WHO) reporting 243 million cases and 863,000 deaths from malaria in 2009. Between 300 million and 500 million people are infected with malaria each year, and although adults usually survive, approximately 3,000 African children die from malaria each day. Almost 50 million of the world’s poor have died of malaria in the past 15 years. The economic toll in Africa is believed to be billions of dollars per year. Despite these shattering statistics, Shore tells us that global spending on malaria is less than $2 billion per year.
“But although there has never been a vaccine for a parasitic virus such as malaria, a small number of people are seeking to create one. The WHO is currently tracking 35 vaccine development efforts. Shore tells the stories of many of these inspirational scientists and those who provided the support for their quest.
“Shore’s book starts with the source of its inspiration: a young girl he met in Yetebon, Ethiopia, who later died unnecessarily of malaria. This experience set him off in search of an answer to the daunting challenges that malaria presents. What he found were bold innovators—“unreasonable men”—who are dedicating their lives to developing the first vaccine.”
An excerpt.
“The eradication of malaria is an “audacious goal,” according to Melinda Gates. “But to aspire to anything less is just far too timid a goal for the age we’re in. It’s a waste of the world’s talent and intelligence, and it’s wrong and unfair to the people who are suffering from this disease.” These words, uttered in 2007 by one of the world’s more admired philanthropists, sum up the spirit of Bill Shore’s latest book, The Imaginations of Unreasonable Men.
“An unabashed enthusiast for technology and social innovation, Shore contrasts a clinician’s obligation to treat individual patients’ symptoms with the work of medical research teams whose mission is to find the cure that can eradicate malaria. It is the approach of this latter group that he argues philanthropists should embrace, urging them to leverage markets to achieve their aim. “When we focus on the one rather than the many, on the symptom rather than the cause, on what we can accomplish on our own rather than on what needs to be accomplished by the broader community, we neglect our greatest opportunities to do the greatest good,” he writes.
“Shore points to the success of low-tech preventive measures, such as the distribution of bed nets. But he notes that malaria continues to take its toll, with the World Health Organization (WHO) reporting 243 million cases and 863,000 deaths from malaria in 2009. Between 300 million and 500 million people are infected with malaria each year, and although adults usually survive, approximately 3,000 African children die from malaria each day. Almost 50 million of the world’s poor have died of malaria in the past 15 years. The economic toll in Africa is believed to be billions of dollars per year. Despite these shattering statistics, Shore tells us that global spending on malaria is less than $2 billion per year.
“But although there has never been a vaccine for a parasitic virus such as malaria, a small number of people are seeking to create one. The WHO is currently tracking 35 vaccine development efforts. Shore tells the stories of many of these inspirational scientists and those who provided the support for their quest.
“Shore’s book starts with the source of its inspiration: a young girl he met in Yetebon, Ethiopia, who later died unnecessarily of malaria. This experience set him off in search of an answer to the daunting challenges that malaria presents. What he found were bold innovators—“unreasonable men”—who are dedicating their lives to developing the first vaccine.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
