The Nonprofit Consultant Blog

Why You Have To Do It Better

2012-05-25T13:04:00.002-07:00

The "It" referred to in the title of this post is Social Media. And the problem is nonprofits who are under the impression that Twitter, Facebook, etc., are just about marketing. They think that it's just fine if their postings consist of nothing more than a sales pitch (or, in the nonprofit case, a donation pitch).

Nonprofits can be forgiven, somewhat, for thinking that way. After all, using the news feeds from many local small businesses as examples, that's what we frequently see. But there's a huge difference between, say, a local burger joint and a local food pantry.

Think like a consumer of social media: what benefit do you get from following either of these streams?

The local burger joint can get away with not being social on social media. If I subscribe/follow/like them, the benefit is clear: cheap food. Finding out what's on special, getting that coupon code, learning today's location of the food truck. If I'm getting any of that, I really don't care if they engage in conversation, or provide any information other than saving me a buck on good food.

But what added value do I get from subscribing/following/liking the local nonprofit food pantry? Being asked for yet another donation on an hourly basis? Where's that "unlike" button?

No, nonprofits don't have the luxury of using social media just as another advertising outlet. We have to use it correctly. We have to be social on social media. We have to constantly put our audience's needs ahead of our own.

Subscribe/follow/like others, and engage them in conversation about your area of expertise. Answer questions about your organization, its mission, and the issues that your programs address. Tell about your successes as well as your challenges. Thank your supporters and show how much they're appreciated. Find out what your audience wants to hear from you, and then provide it regularly and clearly.

Sure, you can mention where to donate, or plug your upcoming events or volunteer opportunities. But not every time you sit down to tap out an update. To get (and keep) followers - and turn them into donors later on - you need to figure out your value added proposition. Otherwise, it's just a lot of spam.

Vote With Your Mission!

2012-05-02T15:33:00.000-07:00

A new initiative from the California Association of Nonprofits (aka CalNonprofits) is the Vote With Your Mission virtual campaign. CalNonprofit's goal is to have 100% of eligible California nonprofit staff and volunteers (including board members) vote in the June and November elections. According to Jan Masaoka, Executive Director of CalNonprofits, "All of us have come to work and volunteer in nonprofits because we have ideals about changing the world. Whatever those ideals are, use your vote to further them."

I couldn't agree more with the motivation and purpose behind this campaign, and find it sad to realize that folks in the nonprofit sector are not already participating 100% in all elections - in California and beyond. Every day, our staffs see first hand the direct results of political decisions, from increased homelessness to decreased funding for the arts. We see the results of over-crowded classrooms and a poverty-level minimum wage. To not speak out when we must, and vote when we can, is to contribute to the very problems our missions seek to redress.

"But is it legal?" some of you may be thinking. Yes, it is, and CalNonprofits has conveniently included a legal FAQ on the Vote With Your Mission website. All nonprofits may engage in nonpartisan, get-out-the-vote activities. Check the FAQ (or talk to the lawyer on your board) for more detailed guidelines when it comes to ballot measures and issues.

So, what does an organization have to do to participate in the campaign? First of all, sign up at the CalNonprofits website so they know you're on board. Then select from the recommended activities, such as asking all staff, board members, volunteers, and constituents to vote, providing on-site nonpartisan voter registration materials, adding "voting in every election" to your board member responsibilities agreement, or (my favorite) granting two hours of paid staff time to vote on Election Day.

If you're involved with a California nonprofit, I hope you'll sign on at the Vote With Your Mission home page. If you're outside California, I hope you'll still encourage all of your staff, board, volunteers, and constituents to vote with your mission.

"Have the consultant do it"?

2012-04-13T14:49:00.000-07:00

The title of this post is written with tongue in cheek, but it does get to what's often a fine line between consulting and contracting. Even when talking with other nonprofit consultants, we don't always agree on where we should draw the line between performing tasks for our client organizations and empowering them to perform these tasks themselves.

As a prime example, when I started as an independent consultant, back in December 2003, one of the main things I did was grant proposal writing. Now, I will rarely accept those types of assignments. Basically, over time, I came to realize that the client was better served by my helping them gain the capacity to write grants in-house. One of my favorite things to do is when I teach workshops on proposal writing (next workshop is August 24 in Santa Cruz!).

Of course, there are times when it's quite legitimate to hire a contract proposal writer to supplement an organization's own capacity, and I'm happy to assist in those situations. But I believe that fund development is so central to any nonprofit organization's survival, that outsourcing it should never be more than a step along the way to building their own abilities.

There are other tasks, however, that are should almost always be outsourced. Among these, in my opinion, is facilitating a strategic planning session. Your organization may have leaders with excellent facilitation skills, but at a planning retreat they are needed as participants. A good facilitator should be neutral, and not a part of any political dynamic that exists in the group, or have a stake in any decisions that the group makes. A good facilitator empowers everybody in the room to speak and be heard, something that's not always comfortable or possible when there's a boss-worker dynamic present.

So, the next time you're in a meeting, and you hear the words, "We'll have a consultant do it," think carefully about what you are asking a consultant to do, and whether it is truly empowering and adding to your capacity to meet your mission.

Interim Executives Are Part Of Succession Planning

2012-03-13T13:20:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, on Alan Harrison's Voice of Reason blog, he posted a great article about the pitfalls of bad succession planning and the occasional need for Interim Executive Directors. As a consultant who has five times served as an Interim ED, I agree with much of what Mr. Harrison has to say.

In Mr. Harrison's colorful example, Jack is the departing long-term Director, who helps to personally choose Jill as his successor. Jill then flounders along for about a year before being eventually replaced. The details of the scenario presented ring all too true, and a story we've all seen played out before.

An Interim ED can be a great solution following the departure of a long-term leader. It gives Board and Staff room to breath, consider mission, separate the reputation and legacy of the departing leader from that of the organization, and contemplate changes in their vision before making the mistake outlined in the blog of trying to fit Jill's round peg into Jack's square hole.

So, who should be your Interim ED?

A well-meaning board member stepping in may sound great, but unless they've sat in the ED's chair before, and have the time and attention to devote, this can be a disaster (not to mention the conflicting roles of ED and board member).

A senior staff member could be a good choice (particularly if they're "auditioning" for the permanent job), but be careful how you back-fill their regular position - or are you expecting them to do two jobs at once? Be careful of setting unrealistic expectations for anybody you put in this tight spot.

An out-of-work ED, who is looking for a permanent position has other motivations in accepting your Interim offer. They're number one goal is completing their own transition, not assisting your agency in yours. If this is somebody who you are seriously considering for the permanent position, do not make the mistake of "trying them out" on an interim basis.

Those of us who regularly take on Interim ED assignments as part of our consulting business do so because we're not necessarily looking for the gig permanently. In fact, when I've accepted an Interim job that includes searching for a permanent ED, I would consider it a conflict of interest to then apply for the permanent position.

My mission as an Interim is to work on the Board's agenda, not my own, and to facilitate as smooth a transition for the staff, clients, funders, and community as is possible.

Returning to Mr. Harrison's post for a moment, he ends on what he considers to be such an important point that he prints it in bold and underlined:

It is never a good idea to have the outgoing director have a say on his or her permanent successor. No matter who the outgoing director is or how amicable the separation is. Never. Never. Never.

I found this point surprising, and while I'm not certain I agree, thinking of some real life examples I'm not certain I can argue with him either. It certainly goes along with my point of using an Interim to provide "breathing room" for the Board and Staff to do some reflection on where they've been and where they want to go, rather than just trying to duplicate the leader who's just left - an often impossible and unforgiving task.

Yes, it may sound self-serving (and it probably is), but if your organization is facing the departure of a long-term, strong leader, bring in an Interim ED first, before starting your search for a permanent replacement. Oh, and I just might be available ;^)

Honoring Donor Intent

2012-02-22T09:26:00.000-08:00

This seems like such a basic, "Fundraising Ethics 101" topic that I'd never have to write a post explicitly about it, but it seems that even high profile nonprofit organizations need to be reminded: Donor Intent is King!

This month started with the news that country star Garth Brooks had won his million dollar lawsuit against a regional hospital. The issue was over a donation Brooks had made with the understanding that a building would be named for the singer's late mother.

A week later came headlines that the Ray Charles Foundation was demanding the return of several million dollars the late singer had donated to Albany State University in Georgia for a performing arts center that was never built.

Now, today we learn that Johns Hopkins University is being sued over the alleged misuse of millions of dollars from the estate of Elizabeth Beall Banks. This dispute revolves around farmland given on the condition that it be used for agricultural research and development, but now will be home to nearly five-million-square-feet of construction.

These are obviously high profile cases involving millions of dollars and well known organizations and donors, but the principles involved are the same for $25 donations to local nonprofit groups. You must follow through on your promises to donors. If funds are designated for a particular purpose, it is your legal and ethical obligation to use it for that purpose and that purpose only.

Raising funds with a pitch for one program or project, and then using them for another is a bait-and-switch con that will come back to haunt you. You may think you did well in the short run, but in the long-term you will lose donors, you will lose honest staff and board members, and you will risk your organization's reputation and future.

When dealing with large donations, do your best to set clear expectations with your donor, write out exactly what the purpose of the donation is, and have it signed. This donor agreement is not just for designated funds, as in the cases above, but especially important if you think the donation is unrestricted. The donor's signature on an agreement that you can use the funds in whatever way is needed to support the mission will protect you if they - or their heirs - ever come back and say the funds were designated.

Such clear, written agreements also protect the donor. And, with such well-publicized scandals putting us all under the microscope, offering your donors such transparency and guarantees will help ease their doubts about your integrity.

Tim Newell, Elizabeth Banks' nephew and one of the principals in the case against Johns Hopkins, explains, "You hate to lose faith in the entire system. ... All donors have the right to be assured that gifts be used for the reason they were given."

Doing Good... And Letting People Know About It!

2012-02-17T10:08:00.000-08:00

You know your organization does great work that benefits your community, but unless you get that message out clearly, consistently, and publicly, you will be losing out on donations to those organizations that have mastered communications and marketing. Today I have two bits of marketing & communications news to share.

First, for those nonprofits who are using YouTube, or creating videos to showcase your cause, you can get even more exposure for your good work by entering the 6th Annual DoGooder Nonprofit Video Awards. Presented by See3 Communications with support from Cisco, the Case Foundation and the Nonprofit Technology Network, the awards are "designed to recognize the creative and effective use of video to promote the work of the nonprofit sector in catalyzing social good."

Best of all, the awards are completely free to enter and open to any eligible nonprofit organization in the U.S., U.K, Canada, and Australia that created a video in 2011. The submission phase goes until February 29th, after which the public will have a chance to vote for the winning videos. Winning organizations will get their video on YouTube’s homepage on April 5th. To enter, visit the DoGooder Awards page on YouTube (click here).

Second, Nancy Schwartz, of the Getting Attention blog, has a new ebook for you: The 2012 Nonprofit Marketing Wisdom Guide. The guide is an easy to ready and reference compendium of advice from your peers on everything from branding, to email asks, to social media strategy, to media relations, and everything in between.

Last December, Nancy surveyed her newsletter subscribers and organized the responses by category into these 219 nuggets that are sure to help even the most seasoned professional. You can download your copy by visiting the Getting Attention website (click here).

Boardroom Musical Chairs

2012-02-09T14:25:00.000-08:00

At lunch with a group of consultants a couple of months back, we were lamenting the tendency of certain local organizations to fill their empty board seats by simply bringing on the termed-out board members of closely-linked organizations. In this scenario, as positions open up, a director will typically say, "What about so-and-so? I know her from board X." And so on, as our boards shuffle around in very small circles.

So, what's wrong with this? We recycle everything else, why not our boards of directors?

Yes, we get new members with experience serving on boards this way, but we never seem to question the depth or value of that experience. When we only recruit within our existing circles, we don't open up our boards to new ideas, new connections, and a broader range of experience.

Adding like-minded, friendly board members, who we already know, will never challenge us to consider different points-of-view, other ways of looking at the problems we face, or force us to take an honest look at our organization's practices.

Many people are drawn to serve on a nonprofit board of directors because of the social experience. We enjoy working with our friends on an issue that is close to our hearts and is important to our community. We feel it strengthens our friendships, and brings meaning to these pre-existing social relationships. And, indeed, boards of friends may be less likely to miss meetings, and might challenge members to work harder lest they lose face in front of their peers.

But there's also the very great danger of group-think. Amongst one's friends, one is less likely to speak out against a seeming popular decision. Peer pressure, and not wanting to seem out-of-step, makes yes-men and women of too many of us. The fear of harming the personal relationship makes us timid in our professional responsibilities.

Many organizations use web-based services like VolunteerMatch or BoardNetUSA to find new directors. Others advertise for board members the same as they'd do for any open staff position. Local board training and recruitment programs can often be found within chambers of commerce, community leadership programs, or nonprofit resource centers. Recently, I received an email from a national organization I belong to, asking for board nominations from among their entire membership.

So, what about your organization? Are you recycling board members within your circle of the usual suspects? Or are you actively developing new sources of recruitment? I'd love to have your comments below on where you are finding new blood for your board.

Whose Story is it Anyway?

2011-11-17T14:41:00.001-08:00

I am one who has always believed in the value of good story telling in fundraising. Nothing earth shattering in that statement. Most anybody who has been successful in nonprofit fundraising - whether writing grant proposals, doing direct mail, or creating event programs - will tell you the same thing.

Even with foundations (and others) seemingly more focused than ever on outcomes and measurements, when I teach proposal writing I always caution my students from getting so caught up in the numbers that they forget the human element. Data and statistics, I tell them, may help make the case, but it's putting a face and a story to that data that gets signatures on checks.

With that in mind, I also believe that nonprofits who want to be effective at fundraising should always be on the look-out for good stories from the people they serve, encouraging them to (if possible) write out their experience of how the organization helped in their own words. These can be used in proposals, letters, speeches, etc.

For years this was considered good advice, and was appreciated by my students and clients alike. Until earlier this year.

The program staff of an organization I was working with all very strongly felt that using these real stories - even with names and identifying details changed - was a violation of their client's trust and privacy, ethically questionable, and akin to an act of violence.

The clients had been through rough times and did not have much. What they did have was their personal story, and to take that from them was beyond exploitation. Unless the client voluntarily and without prompting offered, "I want you to use my story to market the organization," there would be no compromise on this position.

I completely understood where the program staff was coming from on this, and the importance of being respectful of telling somebody else's story. But I also know the reality of trying to raise funds for even the best of causes without the ability to talk about the organization's success in terms of the success of the individuals it serves.

I have no simple answers with this blog post, other than to inform and ask permission before using a client story in your organizational material. But what do you think?

Are the stories of your client's success so important that it justifies exploiting them to raise money? And while the circumstances that brought a client to your nonprofit may be their private affair, don't you have some right to talk about how you helped them out of those circumstances? Please comment below - I'd love to know how you handle this delicate issue.

I'm Nonprofit and I Vote!

2011-10-20T11:38:00.000-07:00

Two of my recent posts here were encouraging nonprofits (the organizations and the people behind them) to be more politically involved (Nonprofits Talking Taxes & Nonprofits and the 99%), so I feel I should also post a quick update when I see examples of how nonprofits are flexing their political muscle.

The Silicon Valley Council of Nonprofits (SVCN) surveyed 560 nonprofit staff and found that they were both, more likely to be registered to vote, and more likely to actually vote than the general population. Senior nonprofit managers were even more likely to register and vote than their staff, with 96% and 97% voting in the last two elections.

Keep this in mind when you're meeting with your local elected officials, and don't be shy about sharing this information with them. As a sector, our voice has long been under-estimated, and we have been too shy about speaking out.

For the sake of our clients, and the survival of our organizations, we need to be proud to proclaim "I'm Nonprofit and I Vote!"

For more on the SVCN survey, click here -- Fore more resources see nonprofitvote.org

Nonprofits and the 99%

2011-10-04T09:23:00.000-07:00

By now I'm guessing that you have all heard about the Occupy Wall Street protests and the 99% movement. The Wall Street protests started more than three weeks ago, and was at first largely absent from the domestic press, with coverage only getting to us through the European press until the story was just too big to ignore.

What surprises me is how little I'm still hearing from the nonprofit press about the movement. Perhaps they see the protests as happening outside of the nonprofit sector, being organized without the benefit of structured 501(c)(3)'s, boards of directors, strategic plans, or foundation funding. Perhaps many nonprofits themselves are wary of being seen as part of a protest movement, coveting their professional standing and reputation, thinking they are above the rabble.

But when you look at the protesters, listen to their grievances, and think about what they're looking for, it is inescapable that are us, and they are ours.

Those involved in Occupy Wall Street, and newer Occupy (fill in city name) movements across the country, are collectively the 99%. Not the owners of the banks or large corporations, but the rest of us, working to survive.

They are the middle-aged middle-managers who have found themselves laid off, retirement plans raided, homes foreclosed on, and health insurance canceled. They are the young, fresh college graduates with $50-$100,000 in student loan debt, fighting to get a part-time minimum wage job and holding no hope for the future. They are single parents struggling to keep a roof, any roof, over their children's heads. In short, they are the clients at all of our nonprofit human services organizations.

And, as workers in a traditionally low-wage industry, we in the nonprofit sector are also all in the 99%. We too watched as other industries got bailed out while we slashed our own budgets and laid off staff.

If you see your clients, your staff, and your organization's mission, reflected in the stories of those "occupying" Wall Street and elsewhere, what are you doing to support them? I know, you're afraid of jeopardizing your nonprofit status by "getting too political." But short of endorsing a particular candidate or ballot proposition, there's much you can do.

Begin by simply getting informed about local "Occupy (your city)" meetings, and sharing that information with your clients. Let them know how they can advocate for themselves, and empower them to fight for their future.

Perhaps your organization can't officially march in a protest, but off the clock you certainly can as a citizen. Invite a board member to come with you. Start a discussion and see where it goes.

Read the stories posted at "We are the 99 Percent."

Visit Occupy Together, and the "Events" pull-down menu find your region and search for your closest Occupy event. Follow them on Twitter and Facebook, and learn what's happening in your area.

About Interim Executive Director Services

2011-09-19T09:30:00.000-07:00

There are many times in the life cycle of a nonprofit organization when it is appropriate to hire an interim CEO (or executive director) instead of bringing in permanent leadership:

The loss of a long-term leader or founder,
A change in strategic direction,
Time to review long-term strategy,
A financial or other management crisis that requires special skills,
Consideration or negotiation of a merger.

Interim staff leadership during a period of transition gives a board of directors the time necessary to make appropriate strategic decisions. The use of a consultant as interim brings additional industry experience to the table in guiding the board through the strategy setting and transition process.

I have served as an interim executive director for five different organizations, each with a unique situation, and each with successful results for that organization.

Two of my interim assignments resulted in successful mergers. One of a small, single-program agency into a larger regional organization, and the other of a mid-sized multi-program, single-topic agency into a larger regional organization. In each case I served as part of the negotiating team, protecting the interests of my client, and managing communications to staff, as well as managing day-to-day operations of the organization.
A third assignment began with merger negotiations, but for strategic reasons the merger agreement was never completed. At that time the focus of the assignment became stabilization and sustainability of the organization before beginning a search for a new, permanent executive director.
With another organization, I was asked to bring it back from the brink of bankruptcy after mismanagement by the previous executive director. My focus here was on bringing in new funding, re-negotiating a building purchase agreement, cutting the operating budget by 20%, and rebuilding the board from four to eleven members, before beginning the search for a new, permanent executive director.
In only one situation was I asked to investigate, and then implement, a plan for bankruptcy and an orderly shut down of operations. Before proceeding with the shut-down, I held private interviews with all stakeholders, including funders, clients, board members, and others in the community, as well as other nonprofit leaders who had gone through bankruptcies.

To discuss the needs of your organization, please contact me at ken at goldstein.net. If I feel we may have a fit, we will arrange an initial meeting at which we will discuss your organization's situation and needs and create a personalized plan.

Nonprofits Talking Taxes

2011-08-28T10:48:00.000-07:00

Earlier this month I attended a workshop at the Community Foundation of Santa Cruz County called "Show Me the Money: Nonprofits Talking Taxes." The workshop was conducted by Kim Klein, a well-known, much respected, and quite beloved fundraising consultant and trainer.

But "talking taxes"? Kim Klein is the grassroots fundraising guru, not an economist or policy wonk. But, as she explained at the start of the workshop, over the past several years of the recession-that-will-not-end, with each round of budget cuts at all levels of government, more and more public institutions were turning to private foundations and individual donors to fill the gap.

Nonprofits that have always relied on those sources were suddenly in competition with schools and libraries. Not to mention those nonprofits who had been reliant on government funding suddenly got the message about diversifying their fund development plan and were also doing their first fundraising letters and grant proposals. Of course, the funds available did not grow. In fact, many foundations (and many individual donors) have less resources to meet these rising needs.

Meanwhile, the nonprofit sector as a whole has been remarkably silent in the public discussion of government budget cuts, tax cuts, and the unwillingness of many to talk about new revenue. Those behind Nonprofits Talking Taxes believed that it's high time for the sector to get involved in this debate as if our organization's lives depended on it, because that's not far from the truth.

This is not simply a fight for those nonprofits who receive government funding; this is about all of us who care about what direction our society and our communities are heading. As has been said by many, a government budget is not simply a financial document, it is a direct reflection of a community's values. So what does the California State budget say about our values, that it sacrifices the jobs of teachers rather than inconvenience corporations?

The workshop was not all gloom and doom. Quite the opposite. Through humor and group participation, we learned more about the state budget, taxes, why all nonprofit professionals should care about it, and left feeling optimistic; that we can have some control and say over the future direction of our state.

For an example of how humor is used to talk about the topic, click here to take the "Nonprofit Tax Quiz" that Kim created (on Blue Avocado).

These workshops are free, and are available to any nonprofit group in California. For those elsewhere, I'm sure they'd be happy to provide some guidance to creating a Nonprofits Talking Taxes curriculum for your state.

Learn more at the Nonprofits Talking Taxes website.

Shoe Changes Foot

2011-05-13T18:36:00.000-07:00

All of us in the nonprofit sector have heard the drumbeats over the last few years accompanying the chants of, "Merge! Merge! Merge!" That pundits outside the sector were saying it, we could brush aside as the rantings of somebody who didn't know how efficient and cost-effective most nonprofits really are, but when our funders - including government at all levels - joined in, many of us took it seriously and at least explored mergers, whether they were completed or not.

And now, the tables have turned... A nonprofit in New Jersey has now made it its mission to get towns to get with the times and start merging:

In New Jersey there are 566 towns. California, by comparison, has only 482 municipalities. An organization called Courage to Connect N.J. believes that the situation is unsustainable in light of the growing financial straits of local governments... They say too many local governments, and the costs associated with them, drive up property taxes.

While I was at first simply amused by the headline and the irony of nonprofits encouraging governments to merge, when I read the article I simply had to agree. If there's one thing that for-profit businesses and nonprofits can agree on, it's the inefficiencies of government.

And now, after the merger fever that's swept through our sector the last few years, who is better positioned to show how mergers can really work for the benefit of constituents and the public good than nonprofits?

When is a Donation Not a Donation?

2011-04-06T07:32:00.000-07:00

A donation that's not a donation? What's that? When it's a situation where the supporter believes they've a donation, but the nonprofit does not see it that way.

Such as, a small nonprofit puts a link to Amazon on their website, because they get a few pennies back from each book sale as part of the "associates" program. The nonprofit thinks, "We're providing a service, and getting a little extra cash." The organization's supporter thinks, "What a fun way to make my donation!" On a larger scale, it could be the logo of a national organization placed on items or the marketing of a national chain store.

Either way, the supporter is often likely to confuse the $25 spent on goods with having made a $25 donation direct to the nonprofit. I've been skeptical of these arrangements for years, and (when I was consulting) often warned my clients not to put too much effort into such arrangements. But it was just my feeling that this was happening. Now, I have a little bit of evidence.

In today's Nonprofit Quarterly online, there's an article saying that Cause Marketing Drives Down Donations. The evidence comes from a University of Michigan study:

More precisely, the study found that giving decreased if a donor had previously purchased a cause-related product, even if the donor was going to make the purchase independent of any charitable considerations. As a result of her findings, Professor Aradhna Krishna, the study's lead researcher, suggests that maybe not all giving is good giving.

There are already some criticisms of the study - small sample size, range, methodology - but I believe that further study will only bolster these results. So, does this mean you should avoid all such arrangements?

I think you can still use marketing arrangements, and sell goods, but you must do it with caution, and with eyes wide open. Make sure that the potential donation is enough to make it worth your time. Use these co-marketing deals to reach new supporters - those who haven't heard of you before and were not going to give a donation otherwise - rather than presenting these opportunities to your current donors.

Ask yourself this; is the business you're considering partnering with going to be promoting your mission to their customers, or are they expecting you to promote their products to your donors? Who does more work in the contract, and who gets more of the profits? If the balance is off, it's okay to just say "No."

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, "If you only ask for small donations, you'll only get small donations."

My First Nonprofit Job

2011-02-06T09:20:00.000-08:00

A first blog posting after a long absence is always difficult; so many things to talk about, it's hard to decide what the most relevant topic would be. First, let me remind you where I've been...

After about seven years as an independent consultant, in January I began a regular, full-time executive director position with a local nonprofit organization, and spent the month fully immersed in learning the programs, the culture, and the needs. I've been working long days (and nights) and coming home exhausted but happy. My orientation and training will continue for another couple of months at least, but I feel I can come up for air long enough for a blog post or two.

Which brings us to the topic of this post, how did this career of mine start? The truth is, at the time of my first nonprofit job, I had no idea that it would be my career. At the time, I was still planning a life in film production. I had not yet returned to school to get degrees in politics (BA) and public policy (MPPA), and was just looking for an interesting and meaningful way to earn some money to pay for my creative projects and take a few cinema classes here and there.

I don't even recall the exact year, but it must have been in the early or mid 1980s, when I accepted a job as a canvasser for the Campaign for Economic Democracy (aka Campaign California) in Santa Monica; an organization started by Tom Hayden and his (then) wife, Jane Fonda. At the time, Hayden had recently been elected to the state Assembly, but he did speak with us occasionally. I don't recall ever seeing Ms. Fonda, but rumor was that her exercise videos were our number one funding source.

Each afternoon we'd gather in our 3rd Street office for some motivational presentation before hitting the residential streets of Los Angeles County to knock on doors and ask for signatures on petitions (mostly promoting solar energy and environmental protection) as well as collect donations to support our work.

Asking for those $10 and $25 checks was the hardest thing I'd ever done. Nobody could have ever guessed at that time that fundraising would become a large part of my professional career. Confession: I was not the best at getting those checks, although I did get many signatures.

There was, of course, a downside to working for a figure such as Tom Hayden. As much as he may have been lionized in certain west-side, ultra-liberal enclaves, he was quite reviled and hated elsewhere, especially in areas where there were many veterans of the Vietnam war. I was physically threatened on several occasions, including once by gentleman who kept a saw by his front door and chased me off his property waving the saw violently after me.

But there were many wonderful people too, who would invite you in for a glass of lemonade on a hot LA evening. We'd make note of these "safe houses" to know where to run when the guys with weapons got out of control. I didn't last long as a canvasser, but I did eventually get better at asking for money...

How about you? What was your first experience raising money for a cause or working for a nonprofit?

What's Your Non-Profit's Bottom Line?

2010-12-27T09:55:00.000-08:00

From Guest Blogger Nick Cooney. Nick is the author of "Change Of Heart: What Psychology Can Teach Us About Spreading Social Change" (www.ChangeOfHeartBook.com), and the founder and director of The Humane League, an animal advocacy organization based in Philadelphia, PA.

Is your non-profit succeeding in its mission? How can you tell?

Large for–profit corporations spend millions of dollars each year gathering data to compare the success of different approaches in advertising, audience targeting and product offerings. The success (or failure) of each is measured by the impact it has on the company's bottom line. Imagine what would happen to businesses if, instead of using a bottom line to analyze their success, they used the type of information commonly cited by non-profits: anecdotal evidence, raw output and how much they cared.

Dear Pepsi Shareholders,

This has been a very successful year for us indeed! We know Pepsi is the best cola out there, and we are 100% committed to getting the whole world to realize it too! Our achievements this year included a $50,000 awareness-raising advertising campaign on buses, billboards, and in magazines. These eye-opening ads highlighted our higher sugar content (yum!), attractive bottle design, and our Pepsi Generation credibility. We also launched "PepsiKids2.0," an online social forum where youth can get together and let each other know why they're committed to drinking Pepsi. Enclosed is a picture of Bobby Withers, an 8 year-old boy that had been drinking Coca-Cola his whole life. Now, he and his mom are buying a 12 pack of Pepsi each week! With your support, Pepsi is helping to create the world we all wish to see: a world where everyone drinks Pepsi.

As laughable as such a letter would sound coming from a large corporation, for many non-profits this type of analysis represents the farthest they’ve gone in measuring their impact. And it's not just small non-profits that have failed to take a bottom-line approach to their work. A study of one hundred and fifty-five major foundations (each with over one hundred million dollars in assets) found that only eight percent could describe the specific types of information or data that led them to believe they were likely to achieve some of their goals. The study, conducted by the Center for Effective Philanthropy, found that instead of hard data most foundations used anecdotal evidence to demonstrate the effectiveness of their programs. Only thirty-nine percent used any tools or indicators whatsoever in assessing even a portion of their work, with even less (twenty-six percent) using indicators or tools to assess all of their work.

Anecdotes and reports of our non-profit's raw output can’t give us clear insight into how much good we've done. Even worse, they provide no guidance on how to be more successful in the future. Setting a bottom line enables us to quantify the amount of good we’re doing now and compare it to the amount of good we could be doing by using other methods, messages, or strategies. Without a bottom line (and gathering data to see the impacts our different decisions have on that bottom line), we'll be relying on assumptions and guesswork when assessing our accomplishments and deciding what to do next.

What exactly is the bottom line for non-profit organizations? Generally speaking, it is the amount of good that we have created in the world. Our bottom line should be the number of people (or animals, or portions of the environment) whose lives we've impacted.

A sound bottom line for a family planning organization would be the number of unwanted pregnancies they had prevented that year. "This year our non-profit reduced the teen pregnancy rate at Northeast High School by 10%." A follow-up question would be, "Which one of our programs contributed the most to that drop: distributing free condoms; in-class presentations about the importance of contraception; or hanging posters around the school encouraging students to make all sex safe sex.

A sound bottom line for an environmental organization would be the amount of harm they've prevented from happening to the environment. "This year our non-profit prevented 100 tons of greenhouse gas emissions; how can we increase that amount next year?" Follow up questions would be "Which of our programs contributed most to those greenhouse gas emissions: encouraging the public to carpool to work, or encouraging home owners to reduce their electric use? And how much money did we spend per ton of greenhouse gas emissions savings with each of those two programs?"

The Jameel Poverty Action Lab at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has applied a bottom-line focus to analyzing poverty-reduction and public health efforts around the world. Founded by M.I.T. economist Esther Duflo, J-PAL’s mission is to conduct randomized trials of aid projects to see which are successful and which aren’t. Much like clinical drug testing, J-PAL researchers create both a test group for a particular project and a control group and then analyze what impact the project had.

For example, in trying to prevent the spread of malaria is it more effective to give away bed nets (which protect people from malaria-carrying mosquitoes) or to sell them at a low price under the assumption that a person is more likely to use a net if they had to purchase it themselves? To find out researchers divided a segment of Kenya’s population into two groups, giving away free nets to the first group and selling the nets at low cost to the second group. Researchers then tracked how many of the nets were put to use and how they impacted the spread of malaria in each of the two groups. The result: free nets did more to combat the spread of malaria than low-cost nets, at least in Kenya.

J-PAL’s scientific analysis on the effectiveness of different aid programs should serve as a model for advocacy organizations. Any non-profit serious about creating change should be collecting data on how effective their programs are (and whether they’re effective at all), and basing all decisions around their bottom line. Heartwarming anecdotes and emotional appeals are perfect when soliciting donations, but a by-the-numbers analysis is what's needed to make sure we're putting those donations to good use.

For more on the role that research can play in helping non-profits succeed, visit www.ChangeOfHeartBook.com.

The Importance of a Good Success Story

2010-11-29T09:35:00.000-08:00

From Guest Blogger Christina Delzingaro. Christina has over 20 years of success as an entrepreneurial non-profit executive. A graduate of Randolph-Macon Woman’s College and of Averett University, Christina has her undergraduate degree in developmental economics and a Masters of Business Administration. After many years as Executive Director for a regional non-profit, Christina created Sage Strategies, a management consulting firm (www.SageStrategies.org). The firm specializes in strategic planning, board development, financial management, program planning and evaluation and grants management. As Principal, Christina takes the lead in Sage Strategies’ projects for small to mid-sized non-profits.

An old non-profit. Slogging along. Doing good work for children. But doing it the same way for the past 30 years. Operating from a perspective of poverty, tragedy and crisis. The loss of major funding brought them to a real place of poverty and crisis. The Board had a decision to make -- close the doors, or do things differently. They chose change.

The first step was to hire an Executive Director with the ability to make the programming changes necessary to address the needs of children and families -- the changes funders and long-frustrated community partners had been asking for. The goals were to improve outcomes for children, increase funding and increase community awareness. They asked me to help.

In order to become relevant, the organization had to change its context: its reason for being, its image, its story. They needed to move from being problem-focused to solution-focused. Mostly, they needed to stop being such a downer -- the pity party had to end. Everyone wants to be part of success 0 we're drawn to what is positive. We had to create a success story. Here's a quick look at six months of strategic, happy, thinking:

The old mission statement:
"We recruit, train and support volunteer host home families to shelter abused, neglected and at-risk children and youth."

The old mission statement describes what the organization does day today - recruiting and training volunteers to act as host families. But to what purpose?

The new vision/mission statement:
"We envision a Commonwealth in which all children and youth have the opportunity to experience the lifelong benefits of a safe, nurturing family. Children and youth deserve families in which they:

are safe from harm,
feel valued and worthy of love,
are free to heal and grow,
can learn to love and to trust others, and
have the opportunity to build lasting relationships with adults.

Our mission is to improve the lives of at-risk children and youth, by providing a network of volunteer host families."

Wordy, and still a work in progress, but it shifts the focus from the tools used to do the work to the organization's core purpose. From process to outcome. And from problem to solution.

The old outcome measures:

# families recruited
# families certified and active
# speaking engagements
# newspaper articles
# brochures distributed
% placements made within 24 hours

Under the old mission, the organization's measures of success were focused on the size of its volunteer corps, not on how services created change for children. And so staff spent time in a flurry of activities (and a lot of counting). They also collected stories of children served as a way to measure impact. The stories told of abused children being taken in the middle of the night to stay for a few days with loving host home families. But few of the stories had endings. Because of the way programming was provided, the organization only had access to the children during the 1 to 21 days of their stay with the host family.

The new outcome measures:

Volunteer Families' Vision for Children & Youth	Indicators
... are safe from harm	- No reports of abuse or neglect - Parenting Stress Index
... feel valued and worthy of love	- Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale
... are free to heal and grow	- Casey Life Skills - Service Plan Goals
... can learn to love and trust to others	- Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support
... and have the opportunity to build lasting relationships with adults	- Family Reunification

The new mission and changes to the program design provided a basis for more meaningful measures of program impact. One of the most significant changes in the programming was to provide more respite services, in order to reach children and families before abuse or neglect occurred. The second change was to extend the program to include on-going case management and family reunification services.

Now staff spend time assessing the strengths and needs of children and families, linking them to host families who are best situated to provide the specific supports needed, and measuring the changes services are making over time. With this information, we will be able to create a story arc that leads to family reunification and stability. A happy ending.

The old name: Volunteer Emergency Families for Children
The new name: Volunteer Families

Working with a great branding firm, Birch Studio, we quickly saw that the easiest way to remove the sense of crisis from the organization was to remove the word "Emergency" from the name.

The old logo:
The new logo:

The creative team at Birch Studio chose to spotlight the relationship between a child and caretaker. This focus on individual relationships side-steps the issue of visually defining a family while tying into the tagline, "Give your heart to a child." The sketchy quality of the logo has an informal and approachable feel. The open circle shape is a complete arrangement that feels inclusive but not stifling. The adult's arms partially encircle the child's, signifying protection and security. The adult shares their heart with a child; the heart is open showing the possibility of new relationships.

The old Case Statement:
"Each year, thousands of children are abused, neglected or at-risk of abuse or neglect. We provide the safe haven children need to protect them from further damage inflicted by living in an existing or potentially hostile environment. Once a child is placed in the safety and security of a host family home, they may begin their journey toward a future free from brutality."

The new story:
"When crisis strikes, many of us rely on relatives, church or friends for support. But for some parents, there isn't a safety net. And for others, the safety net is extremely fragile, with parents often depending upon elderly grandparents or distant relatives to care for their children.

"Volunteer Families is here to help. Our statewide network of volunteer host homes expands the community safety net. Volunteer Families gives parents the time they need to address the issues that created the family instability, and provides a safe and nurturing temporary home for their children.

"For biological and adoptive families, we are a safe alternative to child welfare custody, significantly reducing the number of children entering the child welfare system. Volunteer Families can provide an overwhelmed and resource limited parent with a safe, temporary home for their children, without threat of losing custody. For foster parents, respite services can reduce family stress and increase the stability of placement for foster children."

The new story is one of success. It includes the elements that Douglas Gould & Company and The Topos Partnership identified in a recent study as being critical to telling stories in ways that "generate interest, excitement and a sense that progress is possible."

Volunteer Families is only three months into its new identity. There is still a lot of work to do. We don't know what the final result of the changes will be. But the sense of excitement and progress is felt throughout the organization. New partners have come to the table. New services are being provided. A funding partner recently cited Volunteer Families as a model for strategic change. The grant that was lost was restored -- at three times the previous level. The story is not over.

Trash Your Management Style

2010-10-21T12:25:00.000-07:00

As regular readers of this blog probably know, I do a lot of Interim Executive Director jobs. Basically, an organization that is in a transition period between chief executives brings a consultant, such as myself, in as a temporary leader to help them through tough period, be it a merger, or a financial crisis, or just a pause to strategize between EDs.

Recently I was having a meeting with the board leadership of an organization that is considering hiring an Interim ED, and one of the questions they asked me was, "What is your management style?"

That's a typical and harmless enough interview question, but I always wonder how other people answer it. Do the micro-managers actually admit to enjoying looking over the shoulders of their staff as they work? Do the hands-off people really sit there and say, "I just trust that staff is performing"? I've seen many "experts" give the advice that you should answer this question to match the company's style (if they're command and control, you be too).

But my answer is usually more zen-like: my style is to have no style. Or, rather, the manner in which I prefer to manage is a far distant runner-up to the manner in which the employee needs to be managed.

For an example, let's take two of the senior managers who reported to me in my last interim assignment. Both highly intelligent and extremely capable, creative, and motivated. But very different people with very different needs.

One was new to her position and was still very fresh out of college. While she was full of great ideas and eager to implement them, she was also uncertain in some situations and in need of a mentor. She felt best knowing that we had a set weekly meeting where she could go over her plan for the week and get any input she needed. Of course, if she had questions in between, she'd also be welcome to pop into my office and go over any pending issues, and I'd also casually check in with her as we went about our week.

On the other end of the spectrum was the manager who'd been in her job for about a decade. Still loving her job and always excited about new ways to improve services, but very comfortable in how to go about it. For her, having a regular meeting scheduled (yet another meeting!) with no set agenda other than "what are you up to this week?" would be an unpleasant distraction. As long as she know she could come to me with questions or issues as they came up, that was enough.

Of course, some people prefer to be left alone, but really need supervision... but I'll save those stories for another posting. The idea is that the best "management style" is to be able to put your own preferences aside and find the best approach for any individual employee and situation.

At least, that's been my experience. How about you?

Simple Answer: Boredom and Burnout

2010-10-18T08:51:00.000-07:00

I was just checking Twitter, and saw a question from @GailPerrync: "In general, only 1 in 10 donors keep on giving indefinitely. Why?"

Well, I'm sure Gail has her own well-researched reasons why, but the answer that popped right into my head was, "Boredom & burnout; not being shown how their $$ led to progress."

Think of it, year after year, you've been giving a particular nonprofit. And, year after year, their appeal letters have been pretty much the same. The children are still hungry, the water is still filthy, and they're still asking you for another $50. When does it get better?

It's been said a thousand times before, by many more famous nonprofit consultants than myself, but donors prefer to invest in success than to be guilted into giving, yet again.

Do the appeals your organization is sending out make these mistakes? Or are you first explaining what progress you made since your last ask, the results that money led to, and what exactly you'll be doing with the next donation? Did you remember to thank the donor, and let them know how instrumental they are in your continued success?

Or did you just tell them how awful everything has gotten, and expect them to still be paying attention?

Join the conversation over on Twitter - I'm there as NonprofitKenG.

Managing Expectations Begins with Your Members and Clients

2010-10-13T14:59:00.000-07:00

From Guest Blogger: William Biggs. William is Communications Officer for Safe Haven, Inc., in Thomasville, Georgia, a free-lance communications and strategy consultant, and in his spare time, a part-time graduate student. View William's LinkedIn profile, or email him at william AT safehaveninc DOT org.

The first opportunity to perform a task does not always succeed. When it does, the next opportunity should become easier and hopefully more successful. Funding requests work the same way. This opportunity arrived at my request with deadline approaching. I have always enjoyed writing and most of my prior writing was for either personal relationships or financial analysis.

In this case, the task required a major re-write to provide the HIV humanitarian organization the best chance to receive crucial yearlong funding. Delivering food and humanitarian care for people affected by HIV and AIDS in South Georgia is important. It is clear this population needs quality, nutritious food and the donor was willing to provide it - for the right project.

The non-profit's executive director was certain the project needed $27,000 and was reluctant to push for more. The project's purpose, scope and numbers show much more is needed - $77,000 to be exact. The shocked director asked how she would justify such a request.

Seventy-seven thousand dollars ensures the project's success but chance of funding decreases as amounts increase. A lesser amount would probably receive funding but unless the amount is sufficient, the project has a 100% chance of falling short. We decided the donor may not provide the requested amount but we went with it because it was the smallest amount that could succeed.

Our write-up considered all the parties: the donor, the target population and us. Your organization is probably very similar. Both of us want the job and must balance, and manage capacities and capabilities - on paper and when the project is won.

Celebrate when the check arrives because the work begins when you deposit the check. In this case, the check did arrive - at 100% of request.

Your organization has the money, the staff and a plan. What could go wrong?

The funding win places you as an incumbent and incumbents usually win. The donor has not called, written nor even hinted of any concern so there cannot be much need for concern, right?

Our organization learned the hard way after we won a $100,000 grant the next year for a new project from the same donor. We followed the agreement exactly as the donor required, tracked successes and challenges and reported to the donor. One success should lead to another and we applied to repeat the successful program.

Here is a recap of my conversation with the director:

"What do you mean we were denied?"

"We were denied."

"Wow. That hurts."

"We provided everything the donor required. What do we do?"

It turns out it is what we did not do. We did not anticipate and we did not exceed.

We made the mistake but prevented its transition into failure. New procedures communicate meaningful and tangible expectations and results to donors and members. This is work but it is worthwhile.

How we turned lessons learned into results:

Each member relationship starts with a two-party agreement
We value member input and seek their input twice monthly
Simple and thorough documentation validates mutual needs and successes
Revised the information cycle to begin and end with our members

Every relationship is a cycle and each stakeholder needs at least one more stakeholder to survive and succeed. Our members are our end-users just as your members are your end-users. Without their input, a great project may receive funding one year but maybe not the following year. Ask your members how they define success before you begin your next project.

Reading the Fine Print on Micro-Donations

2010-10-07T13:45:00.000-07:00

October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month, and we're seeing pink everywhere to remind us of that fact. Many charitable organizations are involved in this effort, and many have entered into cause marketing agreements with various corporations to receive donations on products sold with the pink ribbon logo. Donations are mostly small, such as $0.10 for purchasing specially marked packages of Dannon Yogurt, to several dollars on a new pink Kitchenaid blender.

Cause marketing is not new, but it's certainly been receiving more and more attention. One recent survey found that "Mothers and Young People Are Most Likely to Buy Products Tied to a Cause." Certainly, they make the purchaser of the product feel good about their choice, and certainly it makes the producer of the product look like a good corporate citizen. But how effective are these arrangements for most nonprofit organizations as fundraising vehicles?

There's no question that such co-marketing agreements work well for certain large, national organizations, such as Susan G. Komen for the Cure. They are "The" breast cancer charity to many people as a result of their leadership in cause marketing. But how about your local food pantry?

As a result of writing this blog, barely a week goes by when I do not hear from a marketing organization that would like access to my readers to promote "a fantastic new way to raise money for your cause." Typically, it involves the nonprofit selling some product or service, unrelated to their mission, and keeping a small percentage of the sale. "This product sells itself," I'm always assured in these emails.

You'll notice, I haven't been passing those along to you. It's always been my opinion that these small-scale cause marketing agreements are a distraction. Grassroots organizations need to maximize their interactions with their supporters, and squandering those contacts with a sale they only keep a small portion of comes at their loss, no matter how good the product might be.

I also believe it's misleading the donor as well. If I were planning on giving you a $25 donation, and you sell me a $25 item, in my mind we're done. I've given you the budget I had for you. That you are only keeping $3.75 of that $25 doesn't occur to most donors. Selling instead of raising not only distracts, it decreases your potential donations.

Here's my rule of thumb:
"When you ask for small donations, you'll only get small donations."
You can quote me on that.

But this subject comes up for me today as a result of Twitter. This morning, my twitter feed was full of warnings to "read the fine print." It turns out that it's not so easy being pink, and consumers are starting to catch on that "cause marketing" may be more marketing and less cause.

Many of the tweets were forwarding on that "Just because you bought the pink blender doesn't mean you made a donation." The fine print indicates that you must first register your product on a certain website before Kitchenaid passes along any of their profit to Komen.

And Dannon Yogurt? You also need to enter a code from each package lid on the website for your ten cents to pass through to the National Breast Cancer Foundation. And, they'll only pass on the dimes up to a maximum donation of $1.5 million.

Of course, $1.5 million is nothing to sneeze at, and going Pink for October is wonderful for raising awareness of Breast Cancer. But as a cautionary tale for small, locally-based nonprofits, it's instructive. Before entering into any marketing agreements, read the fine print. Both from your organization's perspective, and from the point-of-view of your donor.

How much money are you really likely to raise? How much staff time is it going to take? Would you raise more from your list with a simple ask instead of a sale? Is the product something you really want to be associated with? Are there maximums on donations? Any loopholes or gotchas that might prevent you from collecting all that your donors think they've given you? In the end, who will benefit more, your organization or the company you were promoting?

Continuous Improvement for Nonprofits

2010-10-05T12:49:00.000-07:00

From Guest Blogger: Brian Leitten. Mr. Leitten is an experienced non-profit leader and consultant, chief executive and attorney. He provides consulting services nationally to non-profit leaders from his office in Port Orange, Florida. He can be reached at Leitten Consulting - consulting.leitten.com.

Non-profits need to practice the principles and techniques of continuous improvement (CI). Better yet, they need to make CI part of the fabric of their organizations.

At its essence, CI is a repeatable process for improving processes. While CI was principally developed in the for-profit world, it has broad application for non-profits. Every operation is and will remain a collection of regularly repeated processes. CI embraces the philosophy that those processes are ripe for improvement, even if they have been improved in the past. Practically speaking, I’ve never met a process that can’t be improved by at least 15%. That is a very significant number, translating into 1.2 freed up hours in an 8-hour work day. CI not only frees up time that can be applied to other value-added functions -- it eliminates waste; reduces errors and mistakes; and improves quality of service – all desirable outcomes for a successful non-profit. In any economy, non-profits need to run efficiently. In the current down cycle, even more so.

The philosophy of CI is built up over time. To instill it into an organization and make it last, the direction must come from the top down. Active senior management involvement delivers a clear message that change is good and that experimentation and even occasional failure is okay and encouraged. Management must also make it clear that improvements that result from CI will not result in job losses. A solid promise that displaced workers will be retrained or reassigned to other value-added jobs is critical.

At the same time, CI success comes from heavy involvement by those who know the processes best. In the majority of situations, those who work the process daily know where processes fall short and where improvements can be made. They may not have volunteered their observations or solutions in the past because they weren’t given the chance to; because they didn’t feel comfortable making suggestions for change; or because they feared they would eliminate their own jobs. Over time, dedication to CI dispels these concerns and starts weaving CI into the organizational and cultural fabric.

CI comes in many different forms. Individuals can work alone to improve their processes, using their own initiative and driven by the desire to make their work lives better. Several employees can come together to start a project to address common issues and problems. Projects work particularly well when it is recognized early in the process that the likely solution will require a time gap where someone separates from the group to build a critical tool(s) needed to complete the project. Structured events represent the highest level of CI involvement. They are scheduled in advance with a high level of awareness and recognition across the organization. Events work well where rapid improvement that might otherwise take weeks or months is desired in a short time frame. Events create focus and critical mass teams that can bust through barriers and deliver immediate results.

An example will illustrate the improvements that can be achieved through CI. I’m just finishing a project with the FREE Foundation, a Virginia non-profit that collects and refurbishes rehab mobility equipment and gifts it to uninsured and under-insured individuals in need (www.free-foundation.org).

FREE is currently expanding its services to two major metro areas, Richmond and Hampton Roads. Gifting is expected to more than double in the coming year. Chapters report gifting and outcome data monthly to the parent organization. The current process extends over one week each month and involves substantial hours of rework (re-entry of data) and inspection (review at the parent organization). Realizing that this wasted time will grow with the expansion, FREE sought to improve the data reporting process before the new chapters came online. A team of four (two involved in the monthly data reporting process, myself and the Foundation President) studied and mapped the current process, evaluated alternatives and laid out a plan to implement a significant improvement. It was decided to build an online data collection and reporting tool that would allow each chapter to enter their monthly data remotely. Once the data was entered, the tool would instantly roll up the chapter data into an organization-wide report. As new data was entered every month, it would roll up year-to-date and quarterly statistics on gifting and outcomes, at the chapter and organization levels. No data re-entry would be required. Results would be instantaneously available.

I was assigned the task of building the tool. Once a working model was ready, it was made available to the team for online testing. Real-world data was entered and improvements were suggested and errors identified. Several versions of the tool were built and tested.

The results reflect the value that can be created practicing CI. The one-week period that was required each month to see final reports was reduced to a single day. The parent organization and the chapters had instant access to all of the data. All eight hours of data rework/re-entry and half of Executive Director’s inspection/review time were eliminated, simultaneously improving the quality of the data entered. Outcome data entry, which was typically delayed by several days due to the priority of gifting data input, can now be scheduled as convenient and rolls up instantly. The online tool incorporates training notes at the exact points where data is entered, further reducing data entry mistakes and errors in interpretation of data. Color coding is incorporated to insure that each chapter enters its data in the correct locations. Before and after process maps can be viewed at consulting.leitten.com/maps.php.

In summary, CI is an extremely useful process that can add significant value to any non-profit. Senior management needs to understand CI and make a visible commitment to support its implementation by everyone in the organization. Over time, CI can become one of the fundamental tools that drives ongoing organizational success.

Brian Leitten, guest blogger, can be reached at Leitten Consulting - consulting.leitten.com.

What Would You Say if You Were Me?

2010-09-30T12:31:00.000-07:00

Alternate title for this post, "What you got to say for myself?"

What am I talking about? I'm offering you a chance to write the Nonprofit Consultant Blog for a day. I am interested in occasionally having guest bloggers come in and take over. The topics should be of interest and benefit to those working in the nonprofit sector. They can be new tools and tips for fundraising, using social media, advocacy, industry news and happenings, or just plain old boring good management.

Some may want metrics, how many people will see your post... This blog has average visitors of 185/day or 5,200/month on the site, plus another 284 who receive blog posts by email, and an unknown number who read it in RSS form (ie: Google Reader, etc.). And, of course, your post will be fully credited to you, with links to your blog/twitter/etc.

You can contact me at ken at goldstein.net to pitch your blog ideas. I look forward to sharing this space with you!

Social Media Training for Supporters

2010-09-28T09:04:00.000-07:00

Here's an interesting item for those of us obsessed with social media. On the Jerry Brown for CA Governor YouTube channel, along with posting various interviews, campaign ads, biographical bits, and so on, the campaign has now posted a "Social Media Webisode" -- a short training video on how Jerry's supporters can help get the word out. The first webisode is on promoting the Brown campaign via Facebook:

This is a great example of using social media, and a brilliant strategy. Faced with a challenger who has so far spent over $119 million of her personal fortune, making hers the most expensive campaign for statewide office ever anywhere, Brown has not only made good use of social media to get his message out, he is harnessing the full power of social media by turning supporters into advocates.

Far too many of the social media campaigns that I see, whether political or for products or nonprofit organizations, treat facebook, twitter, etc., as one-way broadcast mediums. They neither engage the audience in dialogue nor tap into the extended networks of each of their followers. Brown 2010 has now done both. That the video is well-produced and gets to the point in barely over 90 seconds also helps.

Is your organization simply pushing random updates to your followers without thinking about how they will use it, or explaining how they can help your cause by re-tweeting, "liking," and commenting? When a supporter posts something to your facebook wall, or asks you a question with an @tweet, how long does it take for you to respond? Do you respond?

Whether or not you support Jerry Brown for Governor, or even live in California, take a look at the training video and imagine how you might be able to train your followers to be an army of advocates for your cause and for your organization.

Shooting The Fundraising Dog

2010-09-15T11:10:00.000-07:00

Way back when I was barely a teenager, National Lampoon magazine was the utmost in risque humor. One famous and classic example of their pushing the limits of the acceptable was their January 1973 cover featuring a dog with a gun pointed at his head and the text, "If you don't buy this magazine, We'll Kill This Dog."

It was distasteful, it was outrageous, it was offensive, it was shocking, and it was, ultimately, just plain funny. It's also a great example of the fundraising strategy used at one time or another by nearly every one of us in the nonprofit sector. Don't believe me? How about this email subject line that just landed in my inbox: "Urgent Request: More than 24,000 children will die today but you can help."

This is what we've all been taught to do: Illustrate a need and create a sense of urgency! Buy the magazine or the dog gets it.

We all know the importance of our organization's mission, and understand our dependence on the good will of others to fund the work, but don't you think it's time to put the guilt trips aside?

Perhaps I just contributed to the death of 24,000 children, but I deleted that email. I didn't even read it first. Now, had the headline told me about 24,000 children saved (fed, clothed, housed, schooled...), I would have been curious.

Lead with your success and your strength, and I will want to be a part of that. More bad news and guilt, I really don't need right now. I'll bet a lot of other donors feel this way as well. Let's put that poor dog out of his misery and put the gun down, once and for all.