And here’s the point (finally): It Only Matters What You Do!!! Unless of course you are talking about branding and communication and perceptions then it’s almost as important to say the right things as do the right things. Community Benefit Organization is a great start, perhaps even a designation that ANY organization can achieve, nonprofit or for-profit (I’m REALLY getting tired of that distinction). Not sure about the actual title, bit cumbersome and boring, accurate but boring. And boring is a great sin in the public’s arena of perception and criticism.

But the idea is right on, and this is definitely something to work towards. If I come up with some good ideas for another name I’ll let you know, or just check my blog… you will find it interesting.

http://www.enlivent.com/blog/2009/10/can-you-change-the-world/

You know that I worked in neighbourhood community development for 10 years, in an area that was “high risk” everywhere you looked. But I was always stumped by the phrase used in the program model, “primary prevention”. Because I’m not a trained social worker, but I am a skilled activist, I could never figure out what I was supposed to do to achieve primary prevention. I asked often in my first 2 years, and no one could ever tell me. It seemed like some sort of vague mystery, and that I might have the answer to some day. Well, I finally got fed up with waiting. I knew I needed a pathway for action, and decided to just create my own answer.

What I did was reframe the vague and negative notion into a positive concept (drawing from the NLP teaching of my educational psychology prof in teacher’s college). What’s the positive opposite of prevention? I reasoned that it is “enrichment”, whereupon I began a new teaching practice called “how to enrich the neighbourhood”. Where people had previously been as flumoxed as I was about what to do in prevention, they knew exactly what they wanted to do in enrichment. The word itself has the most beautiful connotation - riches! We figured out lots of ways to honour the richness of the neighbourhood and to enrich its struggling residents. No small feat.

I feel the same way about the phrase, “be the change”. What does that mean when we speak in CDI terms? For me, it’s too oblique, too vague. It speaks to the negative, or to the half-formed process. This thought has been hovering in the background of my consciousness for a while, and for some reason has crystalized in the last couple of days: it’s not the change that we want to see, as much as the lived expression of the community we want to create. Change is only 50% of the way there.

The activist in me says, “the point is the completion of the process”. So, with all due respect to you and Mr.Ghandi, I’m changing the phrase to “be the community you want to see”. It tells me what to do, rather than what not to do.

Thanks for the column, and helping me complete the thought.

Gayle

AIG did good things by helping people deal with tragedies. Those people paid for the service, but you could still consider that a community benefit organization. How many communities have been rebuilt using payouts from AIG after a hurricane or tornado? Including for-profits taints the image of nonprofits.

Nonprofits sell their saintly image and warm, fuzzy feelings to their donors, because the majority of donors don’t receive goods or services for their contributions. Lumping businesses that give bonuses with nonprofits that don’t may confuse people more. They might think that all community benefit organizations are allowed to give bonuses.

Donors have a right to expect that their money is used for the mission, not bonuses, and won’t donate if they think something is fishy. Even the hint of legalized embezzlement turns people off and would crush not only the for-profit businesses, but nonprofits as well. If the intention is to get people more involved and improve communities, that can’t be achieved if the organizations go out of business for something legal but anathema.

Until then, thank you all for the treat of my coming back and finding this rich discussion here. Can’t wait to see what twists and turns it has taken by the time I return!
Hildy

Because of David’s help and work, we are on track to achieve our very serious outcomes. Thanks David for directly impacting our organization.

Did all of you see the article about Robert Wood Johnson, Duke University and Growth Philanthropy Network creating the Social Impact Exchange http://foundationcenter.org/pnd/news/story.jhtml?id=270900004 ? How does that tie in with the discussion we are having about the goal of creating lasting change and the means to get there?

OPP has worked with David Hunter, both as an evaluator and consultant since 2005, and strongly supports his thoughts on Social Investing and the importance of Performance Management.

Performance Management:
We hold ourselves accountable by having specific roles for Board members, giving them a better focus and ability to lead.(ALL Participate in org. based Sub Committees) We have a performance management system in place to track our progress giving us the ability to use the data to improve, and share that information with other CBO’s and the City of Hartford Office of Youth Services. This allows us to communicate effectively with other agencies to improve the lives of all young people in our city. Based on our success, there are numerous community service networks across the country working to duplicate this model.

Building a culture of performance management such as the one implemented in Hartford will certainly be beneficial as agencies work with others to improve services to their clients. Organizations with strong performance management systems in place can show true results and deserve investment. At OPP, we are seeing results with thousands of young people already on track to reach their long-term goals.

Interconnecting:
Forming Concepts based on OPP’s Data and Community need, the leader of our organization Our Piece of the Pie®, and Capital Workforce Partners with additional funding support from the Nellie Mae Education Foundation and Connecticut Office of Workforce Competitiveness together commissioned a report on The Economic, Social, Civic and Fiscal Consequences of Dropping Out of High School: Findings for Connecticut Adults in the 21st Century. The research was done by Andrew Sum Center for Labor Market Studies Northeastern University and presented at the Governor’s Drop Out Prevention Summit.

I intended to provide some examples of how our non profit has and continues to do the hard work. I venture to say if we were not managing performance we could not say with certainty the programs and outcomes which we are really great at providing and attaining, and those which could use improvement. Because we have a performance management system, now we can say it with certainty and demonstrate it too. If we can do it anyone can do it.

We agree that if social investors would invest both in high performing organizations and in helping organizations to become high performing (such investment is not always easy to come by), it would be significant.

And since David Hunter works to help organizations become high performing, I’m sure this is indeed common ground. Our common interest is in program effectiveness and life improvements for the people served.

It seems that Nancy and others are right to point out that the differences may lie more in how to get there than the end point. Hopefully, that important conversation can continue.

I for one agree in principle with David Hunter’s point that funders need to be a part of the equation. To paraphrase and to be more specific, for funders and corporate philanthropists for that matter to engage together in a cooperative and collaborative fashion (i.e. through the community engagement process and together with those on the front lines) to make change through the way we are doing business.

I wouldn’t go so far as to say that funders make NPO’s what they are as Nancy mentions; because I believe that even within a system that may or may not be perceived as being as life-giving as it could be, we still at our core, have a choice as to how we participate in that system.

Nor do I believe that any one movement or model is an answer to our prayers. And for us to judge each other’s passion and efforts whether directly or implied, does not serve any of us. Again, it is not about the movement or the model, of which community engagement is neither… it is about the principles and process - the thought and beliefs which undergird the models and tools we use.

May I suggest then, that the elbow grease that Renata so eloquently wrote of is as personal as it is professional?

For all of us as leaders to engage in and take action from a place of our own personal presence and belief systems in tandem with crafting a larger “foundational” (no pun intended) organizational or corporate presence?

…A larger presence which, as Jane pointed out, works interdependently in a synergy of the principled shared use of resources instead of independently?

RKT and Kris have good points. Revealing the imbalance in our tendencies to bring focus to what others are, or are not doing, is invaluable. And it’s how we do it… that is what is coming up at issue here. I don’t believe this is a conversation about anyone being right or wrong in their perception. Perception is simply that, perception, and a choice.

What I do believe is that how we are “being” in the sector, in the way we do business – as Hildy has asked us … to engage in wholesale reconsideration of the entire service delivery / social change system – and in fact how we are being in our lives, is what is truly at the heart of all that we dream, flourishing.

Nancy is right (if in fact I believe in a right or a wrong…). This Blog provides a wonderful opening for these kinds of discussions. And I am equally grateful to Ingvild for initiating this one.

May I ask of all of us then, including myself, to give attention to and be aware of the implied judgement we are using in our language by default? Maybe then, our sectors leaders, and those who share our vision, can enter into the larger conversation vs. a debate, from a place of “modeling the building” vs. “building another model”.

Respectfully In Spirit,
Tracey L. Sisson
Animateur
Belief Re-patterning™ Practitioner and Facilitator
Community Engagement Coach

About David’s article, I think your focus on David’s opinion regarding the production of social value is the wrong one. David’s article offers some solid advice about how we may be able to improve the flow of funds that come into the sector – which is currently flawed. Today, most private funding comes from individuals and the information that these donations are based on is not indicative of an orgs ability to perform or of the level of risk associated. David’s suggestions for how this can be improved seem to be sensible and realistic.

I know that Charity Navigator (CN claims to influence $10 billion in funding annually) is looking at implementing some of David’s concepts in the next iteration of their rating system. This would put more emphasis on an organizations ability to manage their performance – understanding which of their efforts are working and which are not and then making appropriate changes to continuously improve. It’s only with this knowledge that an organization can intentionally reach their goals. Otherwise you are working blind and just hoping for the best.