Online Giving: Are you working it in your NPO?

Online giving has been growing in frequency and popularity in recent years and there’s no wonder why. The tech-savvy among us conduct a sizable amount of financial transactions online, most notably retail purchases and banking.

As we’ve grown more accustomed to the virtual, always-on, convenient nature of life in cyberspace (and the disquieting notion of our every keystroke being tracked), it’s to be expected that more of us will feel less queasy about baring our financial all. So it stands to reason that the smart nonprofit should get its act together and grab its share of the millions to be raised, right?

Well then, what are YOU waiting for? I know, pretty bold (or psychic) of me to assume that you likely weren’t among the more than 100,000 organizations for whom online fundraising processors PayPal, Blackbaud and Network For Good reported on in 2012 to the Chronicle of Philanthropy as having seen their online donations rise to double digits in 2012 over 2011.

How, you wonder, can I be so presumptuous?

Because earlier this month they ran another story on online giving, this time lamenting that “Most Nonprofits Fail at Online Fundraising Basics …”. In this group of 151, 100 are big enough to be included on The Chronicle’s top 400 NPOs that raise the most in private contributions.

Now, to be thorough, the previously mentioned article noted how small (10%) a slice online-giving was of the overall contribution pie, so there’s already an indication that the tactic lags significantly behind other more traditional methods of fundraising.

But what struck me about the more recent article is the assumption by the researchers that the efforts among NPOs to establish and increase the level of participation lacks a definitive will, that somehow they aren’t trying hard enough.

Now social entrepreneurs and all manner of nonprofit leaders, especially those working on the fringes of everything, are a pretty resourceful bunch.

Committed to their missions, programs, staff and constituencies, they’re always on the lookout for not necessarily the easiest or the quickest, but definitely the most effective, least resource-draining means to its end.

They’ll try almost anything that they’re reasonably certain will raise awareness and money. I know, because I’ve worked with and for these organizations, trying to find a place for online giving among the other tried and true methods we’d used.

Its power and potential was known. We’d worked to duplicate the campaigns we saw others in our industry launch. But like so many other efforts that stretch the limits of an already taxed fundraising staff, we didn’t have the time, expertise, or means to either launch it well or assess where we went wrong. A lack of will to work harder had nothing to do with it.

I don’t offend easily and will resist the urge to find this an occasion to be so. The article does suggest a number of areas where the researchers saw deficits in connecting with donors, including the absence of emotional hooks, failure to encourage email message sharing and calls to action. After a smidge of wordsmithing, I’ve turned the ones below into helpful hints as opposed to critiques:

• send emails within 30 days after visitors sign up to receive them;

• ask for a donation within 90 days of people’s signing up

• personalize email appeals with a supporter’s first or last name

• make sure the donation page is less than three click-throughs from the

• start of the donation process

But even as these tips are useful to know, can they be applied if you don’t know what “click through” means, have software to set up a sign-in page or have someone to monitor and manage the whole process? Online Giving: Are you working it in your NPO?

Helping to ward off my urge to fuss through my laptop at these folks, was a comment, interestingly enough, made in response to the first article I referenced above, though it was more apropos to the latter.

The comment came from Bradley Good, CEO of OurGroup.org, a morphing of crowdfunding and social networking that gives nonprofits a platform tell their stories, rally a supporting community of individuals, businesses and other groups, then facilitates donation processing. He made several points identifying the challenges around online giving faced not only by nonprofit organizations, but companies and individuals.

The issues he listed as of particular concern to nonprofits:

• “too many expensive and independent systems (volunteer system, donor

• tracking, online event planning, Facebook, Twitter)

• want to involve broader audience

• really just want more funds

• spend too much time fundraising

• bogged down by IT and administration”

Reading this I thought back on the discussions I’d had about online fundraising and whether to even begin the endeavor because of these very same issues. THIS is “what’s holding them back”, to quote one of the subheadings of the recent article.

Show organizations a way to incorporate online fundraising that deftly addresses at minimum the points made by Mr. Good and the slice will certainly grow. Now I’m not endorsing the OurGroup.org model but I am all for innovation as a means of increasing results with reduced inputs.

How about you? What’s your experience been with online giving?

3 New Year’s “revolutions” for your work

When I reflect upon my most frustrating experiences as an employee, having to coordinate 2,000-piece mailings by myself or traveling to make a scheduled presentation only to find that the venue was moved and nobody bothered to tell me, do not spring to mind.

I’m not easily irritated, and though those issues were definitely ones that could have, if the conditions were ripe, tap danced on my last nerve when I was having a particularly stressed day, I always managed to keep my cool. After all, it’s “small stuff”, right? At least that’s what the late Richard Carlson, author of the “Don’t Sweat” book series built his publishing empire upon.

Funny thing about small, though. Under the right conditions, some small things can grow, especially when they keep happening over and over again. And under the right negative conditions, like deliberate avoidance and neglect in dealing with persistent, challenging issues, those small things can grow to monstrously expansive girths.

They can create a work environment rife with feelings of disrespect and devaluation, all manner of distrust and alienation, and even sabotage. It thwarts performance and productivity, lowers morale and renders creativity impotent.

Please forgive the tone of the references, but there’s no better time than right now to be this real. The fact of the matter is that as we’re still caught up in the splendor and wonder that is representative of this time of year and we’ve taken a break from work and its woes to bask in it, many of us will be going right back to varying scenarios of the theme I described in just a few days.

New year, S.O.S. Bummer, I know.

But maybe it doesn’t have to be. How about taking the time now to think about making, not yet another New Year’s resolution, but a revolution in thought and action about how you can use the following three approaches in dealing with a challenging work environment, no matter how small or large a position of influence you hold in your NPO.

1. Lead: Can you find or create opportunities to inspire, motivate, serve as a role model, and build learning environments that help others embark upon personal development endeavors free from criticism and ridicule? I attended an event recently where the speaker challenged us to change our own life trajectory by simply showing faith in other people’s ability to do the same. “If you believe in them, then they’ll believe in you and in turn you’ll believe in yourself,” was the basic message.

Perpetuate this cycle, and see if you don’t find that the stronger, more confident your belief is in yourself, the stronger, more confident your belief will be in them.

2. Manage: Can you find or create opportunities to improve the efficiency, effectiveness and execution of any coordinated processes you’re involved with? Provided your office culture doesn’t require you check your brain at the door, think about ways these processes affect you and the people you work with then make some innovative tweaks where appropriate. Is there a way to perform routine tasks better? Faster? Cheaper?

Challenge your presumptions about what can and should be, build your strategic thinking muscle and stop suffering under mediocre.

3. Support and/or follow: While this may be the role you have already, are there opportunities for you to not only follow, but support the person in charge or effort being managed even more vigorously than you have in the past? Lead people.Manage tasks. Support vision. This can be a tough one, especially if you have some fundamental disagreements with the “why” of things.

You may have to talk yourself into understanding the why, or simply make peace with it, but as I’m always inclined seek the benefits as opposed to detriments of the why, seeking opportunities to assist others can help in building skills and camaraderie, two benefits that may well make the why mute.

Do you have any other ideas on how to turn your New Year’s resolutions into revolutions? Please share them below.

How planning for these 3 NPO priorities can boost your productivity (and revenues) in 2014

Common this time of year is the tendency to reflect on your accomplishments and challenges, waxing nostalgic on your losses and being of good cheer about surviving it all. While you have much to be thankful for and proud of, you know there were a few things you wish you could have done better.

If you’re honest with yourself, you’d admit that with planning you could have definitely done a crucial thing or two better.

Planning and I have a To-Do list and sticky-noted love/hate relationship. My thinking is mostly future-oriented because I HATE to be caught off guard. I do anything I can think of to keep a step ahead of myself: To-Do lists; paper and electronic organizers; reminders scribbled on sticky notes plastered on my bulletin board and laptop.

I’d even leave myself planning item reminders on my personal and office phones. These tactics were helpful in keeping me on track for crucial short-term activities but the long term stuff—well admittedly, they quite often lingered on those lists and sticky notes for months, even years.

When I got around to examining them with an open mind (but trepid heart) to discover why that was, invariably the reasons (and sometimes excuses quite honestly) were because of one, two or all of the following:

1)      it was something that needed to be done but I really didn’t want to do

2)      it was something that needed to be done but I wasn’t ready to do, or

3)      it was something that needed to be done but there was no money to do it.

Now the first two usually required some personal reflection and for the most part I was able to work through the issues that stymied me.

But the last one, well, that was the most frustrating because often there wasn’t much I could do about it, especially at work because other people made those types of decisions and I had to live with the consequences.

Long-term planning at the organizations I worked with was implicitly expected but not explicitly practiced.

By virtue of the roles I played, planning was critical to the effectiveness of my job performance but what became most frustrating was that I knew that if the priority of resource development planning wasn’t built in to the overall NPO’s objectives, no amount of planning on my end could ever result in the organization meeting its sustainability benchmarks in the long run.

We’ve all heard the saying that it takes money to make money and while this tends to unnerve some NPO leaders, donors know that talking about money is necessary and even expected because they know that organizations don’t run themselves.

In fact, they expect that of any in an organization, the development office would be the one that is adequately staffed and equipped, particularly because of the challenging responsibility it holds. And that expectation includes an honest and open assessment of all the needs of the organization which assures the donor that their investments are being used not only to address critical program needs, but the operational ones that help sustain those programs.

So before you get too caught up patting yourself on the back lauding your accomplishments or get too disheartened about missing an opportunity…or two…. or three, take a moment to think about the role planning plays at your organization and how planning for these three priorities can boost your productivity (and revenue) in 2014.

1.       Conduct a development audit: This is an essential activity every development office should conduct for the NPO. Done annually, with or without a strategic planning process, it will help you identify any current or future conditions that are affecting, or could possibly affect how well you are able to achieve your fundraising goals like beginning a major gifts program, planned giving program or capital campaign.

It can help assess how effective your strategies, like special events and direct mail/newsletter appeals programs are and can help you identify development office needs including staffing and resources as well as whether or not the executive director and board members understand their roles and are performing them effectively as regards fundraising.

It’s best to begin and complete the audit as your current fiscal year is waning and the next year’s budget process is beginning, as it could take several weeks to complete and you’ll need the information garnered to make decisions including budgeting.

Conduct a web search using the key words “fundraising audit” to learn more and locate handbooks, checklists and tools to use.

2.       Continue your NPO education: Whether it be an online training series, classroom course, subscribing to industry publications or skill building with a best-selling book, ongoing, planned and scheduled professional development and education is essential to your staying abreast of trends, relevant in your competency and innovative in your strategy implementation.

There are countless opportunities and ways to engage including joining and actively participating with professional organizations, reading and contributing to online forums or just meeting for breakfast or lunch with a few colleagues to commiserate and troubleshoot.

You’ll benefit from the skills building and support, and the silo that can often be life as a nonprofit professional can seem that much less isolating. To be most effective, plan some time for assessing where you’d like to beef up your skills then research what modes of training and education you’ll need and how much it will cost.

Then you can make the case for how it can help you achieve your NPO’s objectives and why it should be included in the budget.

3.       Get or become a mentor —this was one thing I hadn’t been able to accomplish on that To-Do list and I just discovered a fourth reason why —I didn’t commit the time and effort to do so. Developing such a relationship is as necessary and mutually beneficial in succeeding as a nonprofit professional as it is a for-profit professional.

Well into my career I did finally address that deficit and became a founding member of the Atlanta Chapter of the Association of Fundraising Professionals Diversity Fellows program, which matched recent entrants into the field with experienced professionals. It’s gone through several cycles since and continues to be a solid success.

Through networking you casually meet people all the time, but just imagine how much more enriched you’d be professionally through a becoming a mentor or mentee. You could join an already established program, begin your own or just be open to sharing what you know with a curious, eager professional just starting out.

Make a schedule of when and where to meet or talk by phone at least monthly and set some goals you’d like to reach. Then stick to it! Consistency and a genuine interest in mutual contribution is the cement that will help build and maintain what can be an enduring professional relationship.

What priorities have you set to be your most productive self in 2014? Please share them below.

5 tips to great donor-centered year-end appeal letters

No doubt you’ve started thinking about the holidays, not only as regards reconnecting with family and friends but also your NPO’s donors and donor prospects.  What’s that, you say? “Is it that time of year already?”  Yes, yes it is.  But don’t panic.  Below are 5 tips on how you can get back to top of mind with them before 2014 and how you can learn, for free, strategies to create a results-driven, effective campaign.

Year-end appeals are used by many NPOs as a relatively effortless “topping off” of a fiscal period’s revenue.  It’s also a chance to reconnect with lapsed donors, give updates on the NPO’s work and accomplishments during the year, get another gift from those who gave earlier in the year, get gifts from those who will only give at year end, and get gifts or increased gifts from those who gave last year or some years but not this year.

But these attempts can be a kind of shot in the dark, especially if you’ve had a number of campaigns during the year that didn’t garner much in the way of fundraising, and in consideration of the fact that every NPO and their brother could be competing for your prospect’s time and attention at this time of year.  Back in the day I was the staffer who, while unwavering in my belief that you can never ask too many times, occasionally wondered if this would be the year some donor would scream “Enough already!”   And really, by the time the fall rolled around, though it was almost at the middle of the fiscal year at most places I worked, I was tired and really doubtful that I could create yet one more awe-inspiring message with packaging that would prompt a curious look-see inside and a generous check.

So your frustration at disappointing prior attempts is understood. But along the way I discovered there are a few things I could do to give my NPO’s campaign a better chance at success, and I’m pretty sure they’ll work for you too.  Starting with the premise of getting your prospect’s attention by recreating or recapturing what got them interested in your NPO to begin with, just use a little imagination, perspective, and the following:

• Show appreciation for their past gifts and/or involvement. The best way to ensure a recurring gift is to appropriately thank the donor prospect for their last connection with your NPO. Turn Janet Jackson's "What Have You Done for Me Lately?" on its ear by making very clear how sincerely grateful you are for their time, talent and treasure.

• Inform your donor prospect. We know how savvy our donor prospects are and just putting yourself in their place as regards how they make philanthropic decisions should support growing evidence that the most effective appeals include facts and figures as well as words and photos.

• Give hope. Your phrasing should be forward looking, engendering confidence in your donor prospect that the work you've done, are doing and will do is changing beliefs, behaviors and conditions. Your donor prospect understands this will take time but be honest with them about whether their contributions will lead to a light in the tunnel and if so, whether that light is a weigh station or the end of the line.

• Be credible. Especially important if this is your first time soliciting gifts, either from the donor prospect or as an organization. Your moving prose and jarring photos may elicit strong emotions, but in the end your donor prospect also wants assurance that they’re not being snowed. Make sure you include in your letter some supporting evidence that you are reputable and can be trusted with their investment.

• Tell your story. If you’re the founder, talk about what lead you to start the organization. If your NPO has served as a change agent in some way, talk about how. If there’s some success that was achieved by past gifts given to a particular program, state what it is. This builds credibility, a stronger relationship with the donor prospect, and effectively states your compelling case for support.

You know, the thinking is that because people are more generous around the holidays it’s more likely that you’ll get a gift. However, because it’s often the only time that NPO’s directly solicit their entire donor database, I challenge you to think about these letters as more than a solicitation.  With the busyness of our lives and the fleeting attention to meaningful communication prompted by social media, a written letter can offer your donors a moment to be still with your words and images and reflect on why they have, or urgently need, to invest in your NPO’s mission.  Letters bring us back to the here and now, allowing our experiences to linger on their own time. Done well it can be an effective stewardship tool, giving you the opportunity to thoughtfully illustrate through words your donor prospect’s value to, and experience with your NPO.

To further support your efforts to this end, I’ll release a pre-recorded webinar in Mid-November that will teach you how to better frame your message, update your donors on the accomplishments you’ve made, and in turn ensure that your NPO is number one with them not only during the end of the year but all year long.  This webinar will include strategies on direct mail package design, how to determine the right amount to ask for, whom to ask, costs and what to consider before mailing, etc.

So, to take advantage of the FREE training in this webinar, use the form on this page to send me your name and email address so I can send you a notice when it’s released.  It’ll be a part of another valuable free offer I’ll be announcing in a couple of weeks, which you’ll learn more about once you’re registered.

Is there logic in your NPOs program model?

Back in 2000, the organization I was working for became one of the first United Way of Metro Atlanta-funded agencies required to complete a logic model as part of its new application process.

The UW held a number of training sessions to familiarize its members with the concept and I remember thinking what a no-brainer it was that funders should want to see how organizations quantified their impact and why it was just then being instituted.

The model (aka theory of change) depicted the metrics of an organization’s program execution and was designed to show how it planned to accomplish a particular objective for the funding it was requesting.

For the uninitiated, the components include inputs (resources including people and materials), activities to be performed with the inputs, outputs (quantifiable production from the activities), and outcomes (measurable change in targeted population or to the targeted issue, which may be displayed for the short term, intermediate and long term).

From this a conclusion on impact should be able to be deduced. Check out this brief video training I developed on creating a logic model for your organization.

As the staffer responsible for completing the application, I consulted with my development director and program staff and the process wasn’t too difficult to complete. I was given metrics for the programs they wanted included in the funding request and I filled in the blanks. I didn’t once question whether they were accurate or if we’d even ever reached those benchmarks. Just assumed they were and we had.

In the positions that followed, I found that some private foundations had begun to request logic models (or some explanation as to how we determined effectiveness) in their application requirements and some funders even asked to see the tools we used to measure the outcomes we’d claimed. We complied and what we submitted was never questioned, at least not to my knowledge.

I can only remember being on a handful of site visits by funders, and most of the time it was the UW. The organizations I’d worked for had received some pretty hefty awards, in the tens of thousands, so one would figure they’d be expected to come see how their investments were being used.

But I remember awards into the hundreds of thousands by a pretty well-heeled national nonprofit that may or may not have asked for a logic model, but hadn’t come to see about their investment, at least not since the inception of the award (this organization was into its third year of receipt and I’d written a final report where qualified metrics on outcomes in particular were not required).

This recollection of my early encounters with logic models was prompted by an opinion piece that appeared in a recent edition of The Chronicle of Philanthropy.

Entitled “About High Fundraising Costs: It’s Complicated”, it gives commentary on the recent spotlight put on direct marketing companies hired by nonprofits (or in some cases started by the companies themselves) and the obscenely high fees they charge for their services, which in one case amounted to 90% of one NPO’s fundraising costs. Exposed in “America’s Worst Charities”, these direct marketing companies had more than a few recognizable NPO clients.

Were it not bad enough that these organizations were “called out” so to speak for their egregious errors in judgment, and that their donors were duped, collateral damage could well be felled upon those legitimate organizations that use direct marketing responsibly.

The article makes great points about the importance of telling powerful stories and how both journalists and NPO executives alike need to learn about the economics of direct marketing in order to ask and answer questions about it in an informed manner.

But the last paragraph was what got me to thinking about how NPOs can use the power of the logic model to boldly speak to the impact of their existence on lives they touch and change and thus legitimize the money expended to realize such change.

It reads, “Perhaps all the bad press will help us get serious about telling donors about results. If it becomes standard practice for all nonprofits to show proof of their effectiveness, we will finally see the collapse of the faux nonprofits set up just to make money using direct marketing.

And then maybe all of us who are in this business because we want to make a difference can win back the donors who lost faith because they gave into scams.”

Outcome-based programming facilitates donor-centered fundraising, a fact that will become increasing apparent as organizations attract more organizationally-involved donors. We’ve got to put the time in to developing legitimate models that tell us what we’re doing and with whom, how we’re doing and if we’re making a difference.

This is a teaching moment for us.

Let’s model the logic we say in our missions that communities need us to be. Does your organization use logic models in its evaluation, planning and fund development activities?

3 rules of thumb for a thriving nonprofit

I just finished reading The E-Myth Enterprise by Michael E. Gerber, touted as “the world’s #1 small business guru!” by Inc. Magazine.

I’ve read my share of business books but his view on what makes a thriving business requires something of a Zen mindset, which stands in stark contrast to the usual finance, product production and marketing drivel that plays like white noise to me so often when I venture into the world of business education.

Gerber’s perspective is that a business must exceptionally and simultaneously serve the “essential needs, unconscious expectations, and perceived preferences of four distinct groups: the people who work for it, the people who buy from it, the people who sell to it and the people who lend to it—in other words, its employees, customers, suppliers and financial institutions.

He then makes his case by detailing the ingredients, skills and preferences he advises business owners to “post on your wall, burn into your brain, think about during your commute and remember every day,” as they build their enterprises.

It’ll definitely require a change in paradigm to incorporate all this, but for those entities looking to play in the big leagues of Apple or Starbucks (whom he touts as standard bearers of the practice) there’s plenty room at the top.

Nonprofit businesses don’t usually think of themselves as having competition, except of in the case of attracting and retaining donors. And even then, the competition is for dwindling personal discretionary income of prospective donor markets, not necessarily a threat of solicitations from other nonprofits.

Nonetheless, to remain relevant with those donors, however loyal they may be, nonprofit ought not to take them for granted.

Gerber’s assessment of what makes a thriving business can very easily be applied to nonprofit businesses. They too have employees, customers (clients), suppliers (service providers-which may be one in the same with some employees) and financial institutions (or donors for our intents and purposes).

Gerber starts off his book sketching several rules of thumb that I think they could just as easily be applied to nonprofit organizations, particularly because they are at the heart of nonprofit vision and mission:

1. Businesses exist only because people want them to. As most nonprofit begin as a response to a problem or challenge, their life blood is people, particularly people committed day in and day out to solving that problem or addressing that challenge.

   Be it the nobility of the trailblazing founder or the tenacity of that corps of program staff; the intrepid board chair that challenged board colleagues to meet a funding goal he vowed to match or the volunteers that stepped in to take turns at the front desk while the receptionist was attending to a family emergency, it seems at times that solely by sheer will and determination our nonprofit defy the odds to survive.

2. There aren’t any good answers for long. nonprofit must determine in a timely and effective manner what they need to do to ensure they continue to meet the needs of their clients. What worked three years ago could well be detrimental now.

   Taking regular inventory, as through surveys, open forums and strategic planning can help NPOs stay abreast of industry trends and specifically environmental shifts that affect how their programs are experienced by the people they serve.

3. You are either the lawnmower or the lawn. This eludes a survival of the fittest mindset and yes, as I wrote in an earlier blog, nonprofits do have life-cycles, many of whose do come to an end. Once the programs become irrelevant and they see the organization as no longer viable, it will cease to exist.

While a greatly-feared “natural” predator of an nonprofit is the effect a continuing devalued dollar has on a prospect’s propensity to give or invest in its programs, surviving these times and staying on top really means continuing to create systems within the organization that function to:

1) deliver efficient programs and services,

2) compensate staff appropriately,

3) thank donors meaningfully and promptly and 4) build sound and responsive leadership.

Nonprofits can move beyond surviving to thriving, and some of the best ideas out there are from progressive business minds. Venture into the land of capitalism the next time your shopping for a good read. You’re bound to learn something enterprising.

Is your NPO advancing civil society?

In the not-so-distant past, nonprofit organizations (NPOs) were instrumental in promoting and even leading national progress in the U.S.. They made business and government cognizant that investments in projects like the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the Interstate Highway System, Head Start, subsidized railroads, land grant colleges, the Homestead Act, the GI Bill, etc., would in the long run be the rising tide that lifted all boats.  

Internationally, they helped end apartheid in South Africa and the Cold War with the toppling of the Berlin Wall. 

How do you think about your work as a nonprofit leader?  Is it merely an opportunity for you to utilize your skills to solve an acute problem, or is it a process of behavioral impact where changes in people or conditions can be measurably assessed over time? 

Do you feel like your efforts are just a finger in the crack of a dyke that will expand with the pressure of societal ills and diminishing resources, overwhelming your capacity to cope, or is your organization’s mission so consistently effective that achieving the vision is realistically in sight? 

How often do you think about your work as a nonprofit leader and its potential to make seismic change in the world in which you operate?

Since 1963, Ambassador James A. Joseph has thought about and helped NPOs, as well as governments and corporations, achieve global impact in civil society.  Reflecting on the current state of human rights in a world of changing demographics and challenging economics, he promoted a new approach during his presentation  as featured speaker at the May 2013 Nonprofit Issues Forum, presented by Georgia State University’s Andrew Young School of Public Policy.

It was an approach that will restore NPOs as champions of civil society.

“Nonprofit organizations need to lead again,” said the ambassador to South Africa under President Bill Clinton.  “We are a badly divided people (racially, socioeconomically, ethnically, etc.), with a free-floating anxiety. We need to rethink the role of civil society.”

I can be a big-picture analyst at times, needing to re-engage in the “why” of what I do and letting it inform the “what” and “how” of it, thus my attendance at this particular presentation to hear the reflections of a man voted one of 1979’s “100 Most Influential Black Americans” by Ebony magazine and one of “America’s Best Nonprofit Managers” by Fortune magazine.   

In his voice, whose tenor and cadence subtlety reminded me of James Earl Jones, I heard the knowing temperance of a preacher (he is an ordained minister), the enlightened logic of corporate conscience (he is a former VP of Cummins Engine Company, a Fortune 500 company, and was also president of its foundation).

He was also a learned student of Nelson Mandela’s and espoused his leadership as “a way of being,” more than once during his presentation.   In making his case for, “Rethinking Civil Society: Advancing Human Rights in an Era of New Demographics,” the title of his talk, Ambassador Joseph noted the need for the following three approaches:

• Diversity and inclusion—Diversity has a role in strengthening democracy . . . and becomes a civic good when facilitated by inclusion; a sharing of communal space and power.  Race still matters and we must develop messages to create a national will toward inclusion.

• Redesigning democracy –We need to redesign democracy, creating a fourth sector that should serve as a “civic space” where NPOs, business and government can collaborate. “The private sector must shed its fear of public life. Compassion requires movement from private charity to public policy.”  He then noted failings including job discrimination against the formerly incarcerated and the denial of their rights to vote and access public housing as well as the brewing political war between Medicare (the elderly) and college aid (the youth).

• “Boundary-crossing leadership”, where next generation leaders bring their emotional, moral, social and spiritual intelligence to nonprofit work, dispensing with the old paradigm of elitist thinking in the field.   “Today’s turbulence is due to us using yesterday’s logic,” to address our challenges.

Ambassador Joseph left an impression on me that day.  I’m like a lot of people who complain about the way things are, do my bit to make it better and pray for the best.  But it’s funny how a word or phrase can help you refocus or shift your paradigm to get you where you need to be for true engagement. The term “civil society” seems so reverent yet truly does speak to the achievable and necessary state our work should strive to create.

Nonprofit organizations (NPOs) are the consciences of their communities.  As such, they can be considered the checks and balances of business and government.  They answer the questions and address the problems left unanswered and unsolved by those entities and, often as moral compasses, set new expectations of how we should behave, tell us what we should care about and why, and can teach us how to “play” well together. 

 Ambassador Joseph’s challenge to us is to start where we are, recognizing that every voice of every color, age, nationality, socio-economic class or ethnic origin has value and needs representing in our advocacy and policy-making as well as our services.  We must find them if they’re not already engaged with our work and invite them in, be accepting of their past and tolerant of their views, and create a space for fourth-sector initiatives through open dialogue with corporate and government partners. 

All this have you wondering what your NPO has done to advance human rights in our civil society lately?  

8 Stress-Inducing Habits You Need To Break

Late this past Sunday, I found myself growing stressed. 

As a newbie blogger I know the dangers of falling off my writing schedule and was worried that I wouldn’t keep my perfect record of postings which went live each of the past four Mondays.  I have my topics picked in advance and have gotten into a groove of writing that helped me reach my deadline. 

But life happens and with it come responsibilities that can take you away from yourself it you’re not careful.  Alas, between moving my daughter back home from college for summer break, rainy weather that slowed down my errand running pace, and handling my mom’s medical emergency, my short-lived record, and my current personal best, is spoiled. 

Crap.

That left me pretty tense by Monday and driven to accomplish something before midnight.  I managed to at least get the outline for this post down on paper, as I decided to switch to this topic at the last minute for the very reasons mentioned herein.  When better to speak about dashed expectations and the stress it brings?

I’ve always been self-directed and I think it was inevitable that I’d strike out on a solo project like this.  I’m approaching it with the same idealism, excitement and passion as I did when I first entered the development field.  In this career, the expectation is there for directors, managers and various leaders in the resource development field to diplomatically facilitate unwieldy situations, gingerly negotiate nuanced relationships, teach, encourage, finesse, and otherwise create the conditions under which donations, gifts or investments can happen.  

There are few jobs that require more of you intuitively and creatively.  In fact, this is high-stakes work so if stress is ever-present, the conditions for burnout may not be far behind.  But this investment does take its toll on us, our health, personal relationships and sense of self.

I recently re-read an old article in an issue of Advancing Philanthropy on the warning signs of stress and career burnout and how to avoid it.  In essence it regarded burnout as a condition of exhaustion that affects your ability to carry out your daily activities.  

One characterization describes it as being caused by not having control over your workload, feeling unappreciated and a bad job fit.  Some experts even identified stages of burnout:  alarm (stress arousal), resistance (energy conservation) and exhaustion. 

The author of “Too Hot To Handle”, Mary Ellen Collins, identified the most common causes of burnout as:  1) unrealistic expectations 2) lack of support; 3) lack of communication and 4) lack of appreciation.  Not surprisingly these issues were also addressed in the UnderDeveloped report I blogged about last month.    

In an article entitled, “Kick the Stress Habit”, which appeared in the March 2013 issue of Essence Magazine, author Sunny Sea Gold noted that while a certain amount of stress can be a good thing, we often bring it upon ourselves by engaging in stress-inducing activities.  Among them:

• Watching TV before bed—I haven’t watched TV regularly since a power surge fried mine last fall.  Its demise coincided with an awareness that I needed to detox from Law and Order: Criminal Intent and use the time to focus on the myriad of things I never could seem to make time for, (one of them being going to bed earlier, which I’m still working on). 

  Besides who can get a good night’s sleep with images of fires, smash and grabs and gory violence on your mind?

• Getting Hot Over Facebook –I limit my intake to a few minutes a day.  Most of my friends are uplifting types so their posts include inspirational sayings, amazing “America’s Got Talent” video clips or heartwarming photos of their personal exploits. 

  I’m not the jealous type and I could care less about people’s opinions on the issues of the day so I’ve never gotten into a beef with anyone.  And really, if it’s that disturbing, I do have the option to un-friend.

• Lugging a Huge Handbag—Now ladies, I know you needed everything in there at one time or another, but do you really need everything in there now? I should talk—I found a nice handbag on sale at Kohl’s back in January and aside from the color, I loved the size; it was bigger than any bag I’d had before. 

  But four months later now weighs more than any I’d carried before.  Dr. Oz did a poll of his audience once and there was a lady whose bag weight about 13 lbs!  So if you’ve been blaming the ear-to-shoulder phone cradling you did during the recent phone-a-thon for your neck and back pain, it may be time to scale down to a 12-inch-er like the ladies at last week’s Kentucky Derby had to do. 

• Constant dieting –I don’t believe in diets, they’re too restricting. My weight’s always been pretty constant most my life but I did realize some years ago there were some things I probably should stop eating because they could eventually cause health challenges. 

  I believe in moderation, though, and know that to be most successful you should replace what you take away with something tasty, nutritionally balance and calorically low.  Boost the effects with exercise and other lifestyle changes and I found it was the foundation for me beginning to manage my stress.

• Overscheduling Yourself—this is a tough one because there are some family obligations that are difficult for me to delegate right now and I know I’m not alone.  I’ve always thought, quite naively I know, that if I’m being asked to help it’s got to be because there’s no one else that can.  I’ve heard it said that if you want something done, ask a busy person. 

  So since that person’s been me more often than not, I have gotten better at saying no.  In most cases, though, I try to figure out how I can help and when, or offer other alternatives they may not have thought of.   It softens the “No” and shows the person you’re genuinely interested in helping them find a solution.

• Chasing The Trends—Not been a particular challenge for me. I like the classics, particularly in clothing, which usually ensures the items are well made, durable and look timeless year after year.  Heck, I’m still wearing things I bought more than 15 years ago! In terms of electronics and gadgets I’ll usually be one of the last people you know with the latest anything.

  I bought my first smartphone, a BlackBerry, three years ago and just got an android on the insistence of my eldest daughter who felt personally responsible for introducing me to touch screen technology.  It’s been my philosophy that by the time I do finally get whatever the latest thing is, all the bugs should be worked out and it should be cheaper too. And speaking of smartphones. . .

• Being Glued To Your Smartphone—Really, what did we do before these things invaded our lives?  Half the time I think we just feel we have to have them nearby just to avoid conversation.  I mean they do take you away to a different place with all the games, messages, audio and video screaming diversions at us.  

  I know you regularly encounter people (even you maybe?) walking and texting, barely missing walking into cars and cracked sidewalks.  In as tranquil and environment as the public park near my home I can hardly see anybody without a phone or other mobile device in their hands or plugged into their ears. I mean, what’s the sense of being at the park to de-stress when you’re still plugged in? 

  Me, I rely on the sounds of the birds and frogs and whatever else is out of hibernation that season to help me keep my cadence.

Stress can be managed but left unchecked can lead to burnout.  However, there are no quick fixes and sometimes you just may have to leave a job to escape it. 

What I have learned over time is that self reflect on, supportive relationships and healthful living –in a word, balance, has helped me achieve perspective on most situations because in the end, you’re responsible for your own peace of mind. 

I came across these three questions posed in response to determining job passion and fighting burnout:

• Do you love your job?

• Do you have a passion for it

• Are you living the life you were meant to live?

What say you?

Fortify your org against “Founder-itis” with these 2 strategies

I once accepted a position at a social service organization as their new executive director. The outgoing ED was a dynamic warrior sistah whose presence and personality loomed large and she was known and respected by luminaries and commoners alike.

She’d been at the helm for decades, and as the organization’s third but longest-serving ED, she shepherded the organization through some very difficult times and some very impressive achievements. Challenged by health issues and the lure of a quieter life, she finally decided it was time for her to pass the torch.

I have always been an eager student of my craft and relished the opportunity to be mentored by someone with such an impressive professional legacy. It was my first ED job and I was intent on proving myself and making my contribution to continuing that legacy.

She decided to stay on for six months as I transitioned into the role and I assumed I’d shadow her as she showed me the ropes. We had a few meetings and I took copious notes. She was good about making sure the staff addressed concerns directly to me, having me be the new “face” of organization to the public and advising funders that I was assuming her duties.

But there were major things like finances and other management issues that I’d asked about but she somehow never got around to explaining. “What’s the plan here?”, I wondered.

When the transition period was over, I moved into her office and slowly began to feel the full weight of what she’d left me with. It was crushing. Suffice it to say, the organization was in dire financial straits the extent of which the board was unaware, resulting in continued sinking of staff morale and reduction in services.

All the while, my predecessor would make unannounced visits, share her opinion on my decisions with the board and staff, and try to provoke confrontations with me. I’d taken every step I could think of to get help in figuring out the mess, which was of no interest to the board. It was determined that I was the problem, and less than five months later, I took my leave.

This turn of events was disturbing in more ways than one. The most glaring though, was that I discovered I didn’t have the one thing that was most required for me and the organization to weather this challenge—the trust and faith of the board. But why was that?

THEY interviewed me and THEY hired me, yet it seemed like the former ED was the only one that held sway over their decision making. It was like she’d never left. But it was her decision to retire, right? And she’s the one that advocated for “change” in the organization’s way of doing things. Yet, when that change came, it was rejected. Looked like classic signs of Founder’s Syndrome to me.

Founder’s syndrome is a REAL affliction. Also known as “Founder-itis” it’s been written about extensively and there are even indicators and questions you can ask in identifying the symptoms. And for founders (and long-serving, weather-worn ED’s) there is even a test you can take to see if you “have” it.

In researching this subject I came across a variety of tones in which the authors describe their personal experiences with founder-itis and how best to address it. Should you confront, be compassionate or wage an all-out coup d’etat?

Well, I’m a process-oriented person myself, and really would rather avoid the whole mess with good planning. You’ll remember that I’d mentioned earlier how there was none. It was obvious and resulted in inadvertent transition sabotage.

So, could they have taken a page from the corporate playbook and worked on grooming a leader from within who would have been prepared to slip right into the ED role when the time came?

Certainly, there was already someone on board with the institutional knowledge and program management skills—all that was needed was some executive savvy and business training. With this person identified, the board could have instituted a “Departure-Defined Succession Plan ” as to prepare the organization and all their stakeholders for the transition.

Alas, these two areas, leadership development and succession planning, are oftentimes not even on the radar of some boards, many of whom have never heard of the concepts. It is up to the ED to spearhead these discussions, ensuring that they are a part of strategic planning and are included in their annual budgets, annually.

Unfortunately, many small and grassroots nonprofits operate in crisis management mode pretty regularly, responding to challenges reactively, rather than proactively. It is no wonder that my former employer found itself in such a precarious position, with their sustainability severely weakened, resulting in massive staff cuts and program disruptions. So unnecessary.

Take a moment to click on the links in this post and review the materials, including this one on successful executive transitions. They should at the very least begin to give you a perspective on the conditions within your own organizations and can hopefully lead you to some proactivity of your own.

Remember the old adage: an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

My reflections on the top 3 findings of the national study, UnderDeveloped

I was in the throes of a very intense few weeks with the executive director of an organization I was development director of when the report “UnderDeveloped: A National Study of Challenges Facing Nonprofit Fundraising” was released.

Long story short, projects weren’t going to her satisfaction and she immediately saw it as a performance issue as opposed to a resource, communication and systems issue, as I’d pointed out to her on previous occasions. Despite it all, I tried to do what I could to salvage what, I wasn’t at all sure. After all, I’ve always been a conscientious worker, and I thrive in an environment that respects and supports my work and my point of view. That wasn’t happening here.

Unfortunately, a familiar pattern was emerging; a dysfunction I knew would leave me frustrated and disappointed. I told her about the report and how I felt it spoke to a lot of what we both were experiencing. I parted ways with that organization soon after our discussion but not before passing along to her the report’s weblink as promised. I hope for the sake of the organization and herself, she reads it.

When I saw the report, I was elated and relieved. Finally, the challenges I’d been facing since I entered this field more than 15 years ago were being addressed. I discovered I’m not alone and my experiences are now validated by scientific data. But while there is comfort in numbers, it made me concerned at the same time.

You see, I know the potential strength of effective fundraising when sound organizational development, buoyed in a “culture of philanthropy” is lead by an optimally-functioning three legged stool: executive director, development director and board. This report essentially speaks to the vicious cycle of the self sabotage organizations exhibit by their inability or refusal to recognize this and adapt a philosophy that supports it, as the following findings
identify:

• “Revolving Door—Organizations are struggling with high turnover and long vacancies in the development director position.”

The report states that 50% of development directors surveyed anticipate leaving their positions within two years or less, with a slightly higher rate among organizations with budgets less than $1 million. Only a bit more than one third of the ED’s surveyed anticipated leaving their posts in the same time period, indicating that these same ED’s will continue to see instability in their development programs.

For the exception of my first development position, I’d stepped into vacancies that had been open anywhere from six months to two years. I was never able to ascertain exactly why my predecessor left or why there was seemingly no urgency in filling such a pivotal position.

Invariably, with no point of reference, I had to start building a development program from
scratch, as there were no current files to refer to, systems to implement or relational donor histories to trace and rekindle. And without fail, there was a culture of crisis fundraising, which resulted in my being in a perpetual state of playing “catch-up”.

• “Help Wanted –Organizations aren’t finding enough qualified candidates for development director jobs. Executives also report performance problems and a lack of basic fundraising skills among key development staff."

With the proliferation of nonprofit management undergraduate and graduate programs over the last ten years or so, this one is a head scratcher—to a degree.

Is it a matter of poor educational programming, unrealistic ED/board expectations, or ill-prepared organizations? Even more curious to me was that the report cited that while between 30%-50% of ED’s made this claim about their DD’s, 25% of them admitted to lacking skills and knowledge to secure gifts themselves and 20% don’t even like doing it!

As truly the chief fundraising staffer of the organization, how then can they fairly and effectively judge performance with attitudes like these?

I recently attended the second in the webinar series UnderDeveloped: What Now? presented by the sponsors of the above-referenced report, which culled feedback from nonprofit fundraising consultants.

One of the panelists was of the opinion that graduate-level nonprofit management programs, while critical to the future preparation of leaders, were woefully lacking, particularly in the area of resource development and fundraising. And in terms of certification-type qualifiers, another panelist felt that the CFRE serves as more of a baseline indicator of a development professional’s expertise and not necessarily an indicator of a top performer. Which leads to:

• “It’s about more than one person--Beyond creating a development director position and hiring someone who is qualified for the job, organizations and their leaders need to build the capacity, the systems, and the culture to support fundraising success. The findings indicate that many nonprofits aren’t doing this."

So is it a “what-came-first-the-chicken-or-the-egg” scenario? Do organizations need a qualified DD in order to institute a culture of philanthropy? Or does the organization leadership need to cultivate and embody a culture of philanthropy in order to attract the best and brightest DD’s?

I’d say either way it starts with the acceptance by organizations that the status quo is not only ineffective but represents a dereliction of the fiduciary responsibility boards are held to by all shareholders.

And as the ED serves as the face of that responsibility daily, I can’t see how any organizational change in philanthropic philosophy can be sustained without there first being a commitment by that ED to shepherd the process with the board (in absence of a DD) or with the DD where one exists.

I’ll have more on this report in future posts, including the recommendations made by its sponsors. In the meantime, take a look at the report yourself and let me know what you think.

How to choose your next nonprofit job

The concept of loyalty in employment for the most part no longer exists in today’s workplace.

What we have now are business arrangements predicated upon the employer’s expectations being met. With both for-profit and nonprofit employers, I’ve had some really good work relationships and some bad ones—really bad. The bad ones were in part because I was never really good at determining early enough when the employer went from considering me a valuable organizational asset to that of a mere warm body, tasked to check my brain at the door, make like an automaton and produce!

In hindsight, because every organization has a culture and philosophy about how employees are regarded (written or unwritten), I just didn’t recognize where I stood initially and by the time my intuition kicked in it was too late.

My perspective now is that regardless of how tough the job market is, job seekers don’t have to feel like they have to be on the losing end of that business arrangement, not if they go in knowing as much about the employer as the employer knows about them. In this economy, one could argue who holds the handle as opposed to the blade, as my mom used to say, but past experience taught me that I have just as much to lose, if not more, as any employer if I don’t do my homework before selecting the right nonprofit employer for me.

Employment specialists will counsel on the things you should do to position yourself as an attractive employee prospect, including researching your prospective employer. But along with appearing knowledgeable and proactive during the interview, also consider how you can get information that will help you determine what kind of employment experience you’ll have even before you walk through their doors.

Like they say, turnabout is fair play so use some of their vetting processes to get as clear a picture as you can of what you may be signing up for. You know what they are:

1. Check their “resume’” to see what they’re saying and reporting about themselves.

They have (or will eventually have) your social security number; you have the internet. Beyond reading about their program achievements on their website, brochures and press releases, obtain a copy of the last few annual reports and 990’s. Financials can paint quite a revealing picture including, most importantly, whether or not they’ll be around in a year. You can find out the percentage of the budget spent on administration and fundraising, who their significant funders were for the year of filing and the size of gifts they’ve been able to secure, whether there’s consistency with those awards over time, who their board members are, etc. And if you can’t find a 990 filing, that is cause for concern. No matter how small they are they’re required to file and there are dire consequences if they don’t.

2 . Check their “references” to see what others are saying about them.

Do an internet search using certain key words to see if they have been involved in issues (positive or negative) that can shed light on their organizational, business, program or fiduciary practices or if there are particular issues trending that may affect their field of work. Use your networks to find out if anyone you know has either received services, volunteered or, more relevant, were once an employee.

Enlist some dear friends (folks who owe you a favor will do just as well) to do some investigating for you by calling and inquiring about services or volunteer opportunities. You could glean quite a lot from this, like how long it took for someone to answer the call (possible staffing issues); whether the inquiry was handled appropriately and timely (level of program/organization knowledge and professionalism), how long it took for the voicemail or written message to be returned (customer service), or how their volunteer service experience went. Having objective impressions from impartial parties can give a much needed perspective.

3. Listen to your gut.

The ideal would be that you’re able to complete all this before your interview, so you can bring up any concerns during the “Do you have any questions for us?” closeout phase. Broach the topic through questions that give them the opportunity to state some of their challenges, some of which you may very well be able to help solve should you be hired.

But once all the questions have been asked and answered, listen to your gut, considered by some to be the “second brain”, with a power to command our attention when things just don’t feel right. If there’s anything you discovered during your research or during the interview that doesn’t sit well with you, you’ll have a tough decision to make should they offer you the position.

It is important for a job seeker to seriously guard their professional reputation, particularly in the case of resource development professionals. A bad employment experience, especially as regards work conditions, management philosophy, performance expectations and the availability of the tools and resources you need to do your job exceptionally well, can set your career on the wrong track, or completely off it.

Then you’re stuck having to explain to the next employer prospect how it is you ended up as a DD or ED with an organization facing devastating financial straits that threaten its existence just six months after you took over (trust me, I know).

Remember, regardless of what job market you find yourself in, you always have control of who you work for. In fact, giving yourself permission to say “No” can lead to your smartest career move yet.

3 ways to tell if you work in a nonprofit twilight zone

I love watching Twilight Zone reruns!

I remember scheduling my activities during its periodic cable TV marathons back in the 80’s so I could catch at least a solid 6 hours of it. I really don’t know what captivates me so about the series even to this day –maybe it’s because it dealt entirely with human psychology and I was once a student (briefly).

Thing was, the characters would know the situations were out of this world (literally and figuratively) but would still try to adapt common reasoning as they would to normal situations. One thing you could always count on was the reality check soon to come because nothing in the Twilight Zone, though apparently normal, is ever as it seems.

And as I soon learned, neither was life at a nonprofit.

Like many of you, my foray into nonprofit fundraising was by happenstance. I’d started out as an applicant for an administrative position and by the time I got to the interview was being considered for development coordinator. Though I wasn’t clear about what development was, I was relieved to have been considered qualified to do it. I wanted a career, not a job, and I felt like I’d finally found my purpose.

Well as time passed, my skills and training got me positions with more responsibility. These organizations seemed to be sound, and as they’d been around for several years I assumed their leaders knew something about development.

I soon got my reality check on that because through the years I’d slipped in and out of The Twilight Zone on several occasions. What you are about to read are true accounts of a few of my experiences. If they sound familiar, maybe you too have and one time or another entered the nonprofit Twilight Zone.

Submitted for your approval . . .

1: Your job description states that you are to be a “self starter, take initiative and work with little supervision” yet you’re regularly quizzed, sometimes harshly, about decisions you’ve made.

My training and professional development endeavors taught me best practices that I was eager to apply to my job tasks. One thing that kept me motivated to continue doing nonprofit work was the entrepreneurial freedom I had to, in essence, “make my own job”. As a development director/manager/specialist, etc. there is the expectation that you know what to do and if you don’t you’re gonna ask somebody.

But mentors were VERY hard to find in the grassroots/small nonprofits I worked for so I’d relied on my training and common sense, which on one job almost got me fired because I’d decided to address donors as “Mr. Smith” or “Ms. Smith” in solicitation letters and not as “Dear Friend” as had been customary.

2. Gaining access to program information/data that everyone knows you need is tedious and cumbersome.

New to the organization, there were regularly scheduled grant proposal and periodic reports that the ED knew needed to be completed with program information that I’d assumed would be at the ready.

Instead I was told I needed to talk to three different staffers to get the information; one had the info in a format she could easily email to me and I could cut and paste, one had nothing documented and would have to “wing it” and the other, seemed reticent and even borderline defensive saying he’ll have to think about how to give the information to me because he doesn’t want to give away any “trade secrets”.

3. You’re told you’ll need to make up a budget shortfall/campaign goal increase without being included in the budgeting conversations.

Three months before the end of the fiscal year my ED informs me that the development committee increased the annual campaign goal by $70,000 in response to a budget shortfall and that I need to figure out how to get us in the black. She apologized for the last minuteness of the announcement—she was always so pleasant, and genuinely so—but made it very clear how urgent it all was.

I had a fleeting moment of panic followed by considerable moments of resentment at being put in this predicament and while in the midst of trying to figure out which donors I could tap yet again, a champion on the board came through with contributions from colleagues and friends. Crisis averted—one that for some reason she thought should land solely on my shoulders.

Now, I know I’m not alone here, as Earl Holliman wondered in the first episode of The Twilight Zone, “Where is everybody?”

Can YOU relate?