CoreStrategies on Nonprofits

Is the Arts and Culture Community on Your List of Potential Collaborators?

2011-12-21T17:51:00.000-08:00

Few would argue the value of arts and culture. The vibrancy of arts and culture within a community has long been a key indicator of its livability. Individuals and companies looking to move into an area frequently evaluate the number and diversity of offerings as part of their decision-making process. Art therapy has proven helpful in treating a wide variety of conditions, from Alzheimer’s to physical and emotional trauma. And, a great deal of attention has recently been paid to the substantial economic impact of arts and culture. According to the 2010 National Arts Index, a report issued by Americans for the Arts, economic activity in the U.S., while losing ground during the recession, is still a $150‐$160 billion a year business that puts more than 2 million people to work and increasingly attracts cultural tourists (the number of foreign visitors who attend cultural events or venues has increased 23% since 2003).

However, today we have another reason to value arts and culture. It’s being used “in increasingly diverse ways to engage and build communities and address the root causes of persistent societal problems, including issues of economic, educational and environmental injustice as well as inequities in civil and human rights.” (“Fusing Arts, Culture and Social Change: High Impact Strategies for Philanthropy” by Holly Sidford for the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, 2011) Artist-activists are pulling us in, forcing us to examine our assumptions and the way we do business.

To-date, most of this work has emerged from and been centered in the art world. Just one example from my community is the Center for Folk and Community Art, which involves the community’s residents in story-telling, using a combination of written work, murals and public presentation. In the past it has focused attention on societal issues such as gang culture and violence, bullying, abuse and violence in teen dating relationships, the environment and homelessness.

But, arts and culture could be so much more. It could be totally integrated into the fabric of social change, where artists sit at the same table as nonprofits, private businesses and governmental agencies committed to creating a healthier place for each of us to live. This is particularly important as the artistic voices of those who have previously often been disenfranchised – i.e., those making art outside of the better supported and recognized Western European, “classical” art forms – break through, since there is much to be learned from these voices.

According to the Animating Democracy’s 2010 report, “Trend or Tipping Point: Arts and Social Change Grantmaking” there are currently more than 150 funders nationwide that have recognized the value of supporting coalitions that are dedicated to social change and are inclusive of artists. I am proud that our own local community foundation is one of them. But what of the many nonprofits currently putting together coalitions to more successfully tackle community issues that are at the heart of their mission?

If your organization is contemplating collaboration, I would like to know if your board is considering the contribution artists, arts and culture could make in your success? How intentional is your board about including artists, especially those outside “mainstream arts and culture”? How are you going about finding the appropriate partners? Please write in and share your experiences and learnings.

Power to the People: One More Reason for Boards to Listen to Their Communities

2011-10-02T15:56:00.000-07:00

Smile Train and Operation Smile both provide (literally) face-saving surgeries to indigent children outside the U.S. born with cleft palates. Smile Train is actually an offshoot of Operation Smile, rising out of a difference in philosophy. Whereas Operation Smile sends doctors overseas to perform the operations, Smile Train uses local doctors. The spinoff, which occurred in the late 1990’s, left the two organizations bitter rivals. However, with the changes in the world the two organizations contemplated a merger this past spring that would have brought them back together again. Merger talks were suddenly called off though when donors of Smile Train representing 82 million dollars in contributions expressed opposition to the proposition – some quite publicly.

This is but one example of what those of us who closely follow the many news briefs and RSS feeds from the sector are increasingly seeing (special thanks to Ruth McCambridge, editor of The Nonprofit Quarterly who along with her colleagues put out an excellent daily feed and recently raised this particular example at the Alliance Conference in Oakland, California) – community stakeholders who are mad as hell about some of the decisions being made in their name. And, they aren't just going to take it any more. (For those too young to get the cultural referent, rent the 1976 film Network. It’s probably more relevant now than when it was released.) The public brouhaha that embroiled Smile Train and Operation Smile is just the latest volley in a trend that began with donors wanting a say in how their money is spent. It is a trend that intensified with those donors demanding the return of their money if they feel that the intent behind their gift is not being honored. And, it is a trend that became a runaway train with the decision of an increasing number of stakeholders to pump their financial and human assets into new organizations when they sense the legacy organizations are failing to achieve sufficient or desired impact.

Boards today must recognize that the marketplace will drive which nonprofits shall live and which shall die. If boards aren't paying close attention to what their stakeholders deem important, they may find their organizations on the list of failed entities and their personal reputations sullied for betraying the community’s trust.

To me, the lesson is obvious. Someway, somehow, boards must listen – really listen – to their stakeholders. This might be done informally as long as there is some intentional way of capturing the data on an ongoing basis, such as including BTW Talk on every agenda. For those who have not heard me explain this before, the BTW Talk involves scheduling 20 minutes or so at each meeting to discover what board members have been hearing in conversations with friends, family and colleagues since the last time the board met. These are conversations that could potentially impact the organization and its mission in some way and often start with, “By the way….”

Or, it can involve instituting a means for gathering information on a more formal basis. For instance, the board might contract to survey the community on a regular basis. These surveys can be done online, through the mail, in person or over the phone. Interviews, insight or focus groups, and large-scale change methodologies such as World Café, Future Search or Appreciative Inquiry can also be employed to garner the community’s insights.

The focused and purposeful use of advisory councils is another means of tapping into what the community needs. So is bringing greater diversity into our boardrooms. One way to do this is to choose a model such as Community Engagement Governance (see Freiwirth, Judy. “Engagement Governance for System-Wide Decision Making.” Nonprofit Quarterly. Summer 2007. pgs. 38 – 39), which actually shares the power of decision-making with different individuals in the community based on their interests and areas of expertise. The key in all of these cases is to truly give weight to what the community is saying and not just employ the techniques as window dressing.

Since this list is by no means inclusive, I am anxious to hear what others have used to stay in touch with what their stakeholders are thinking, feeling and desiring. Please share your success stories and your “learning experiences.”

Living with Hope, Part 4

2011-09-28T12:45:00.000-07:00

In Parts 1-3 (please read those first if you haven't already), I talked about how my colleague Jim Mueller's blog about keeping a sense of hope during these challenging times inspired me to write about my amazing 3-legged Husky who happens to be named Hope. Her story may remind you of what we (and our organizations) are capable of if we approach each day with a focus on the gift of the now, while not losing sight of the possible (our vision).

Becoming part of the "pack" (human and dog) at the dog park has been an amazing journey. Hope and I tried out several dog parks (we are really lucky to live in an area where dog parks are plentiful) and settled on one that is close to our home. We began going almost every day at about the same time, early evening. Soon, Hope formed friendships with a few of the regulars and then so did I.

For about a year, none of us knew anything more about each other than our first names. Our conversations were very dog-oriented. Then, over time, we all began to bond in other ways, talking about work, personal life, challenges, joys. During the past four years, one of the pack got breast cancer, and we all got together to help with daily needs including care of her dog while she went through chemo and radiation. We celebrated births. We have been through deaths of loved ones and of beloved pets, and welcomed puppies. We helped out when someone had a car accident and couldn't drive for a while. We began to give and refer business to one another. We began to have parties! One of us who by day is an accountant is a drummer in a local band, so we go and dance when he plays.

We have become a really committed group of friends with the love of dogs as our core value. It just feels good, natural and comforting. We watch out for our dogs and for each other. Our daily time together in the park is when we get to leave the day behind and truly live in the now. We watch the dogs play and catch up with each other. And I know that Hope has a special place in the hearts of this group. I hear the pride in their voices when they describe her, how amazing she is, when new people come to the park and ask about her missing leg.

If you are reading this blog, you are probably involved in the nonprofit world and have no trouble understanding what I am saying. It doesn't hurt to remind ourselves that one of the reasons we do this is because we like to be around other people whose values match ours, people who care about others (human and animal) and want to make the world a better place. Through our work and our lives outside of work, we keep going forward with our commitment to change and better our communities. It's what we are about.

On that note, I would like to end this blog series with the last of my Hope-isms to add to the 13 on the previous posts.

Climb a tree while you still can

Live in the moment, especially if it includes a roll in the grass

A good massage does wonders for aching legs

Knowing when to back off is as important as knowing when to stand your ground

Protect your friends, especially from bullies

Jump up and run to the door when your loved one comes home, even if it takes you a few minutes to get your balance

Living with Hope, Part 3

2011-09-26T10:04:00.000-07:00

In Parts 1 and 2 (please read those first if you haven't already), I talked about how my colleague Jim Mueller's blog about keeping a sense of hope during these challenging times inspired me to write about my amazing 3-legged Husky who happens to be named Hope. Her story may remind you of what we (and our organizations) are capable of if we approach each day with a focus on the gift of the now, while not losing sight of the possible (our vision).

After Hope and I had been living together for about a year, I began to research what types of assisting devices might be available to help her. As it turns out, there is really nothing much out there for dogs missing an entire front leg. I did find something I thought might be helpful to her. It was a two-wheeled cart with supportive fabric that fit around her chest. Her one front leg rested off the ground while the wheels supported her.

I was very excited on the day we went to try out this device -- Hope, however, not so much. She gave me withering looks during the fitting. I kept thinking "But wait until you see how much fun you will have with this!" Oh, was I wrong. Cart in place, Hope tried to walk toward me. But instead she began to circle. The harder she tried, the faster she went in a full circle. As it turned out, because of the imbalance the device caused, it was impossible for her to propel herself forward. I actually think the whole episode embarrassed her. That was the last time I went in search of a "fix." Hope doesn't see herself as needing fixing -- I was the one who did.

So we have now been together almost five years. Hope is thriving. In my next and last post, I'll give you a sense of our daily routines. I do believe one way or another Hope had a vision of this good life when she was struggling to survive on the streets of Miami. If she thought her entire life would be days full of pain and suffering I doubt she would have lasted. Along with the seven Hope-inspired life and work lessons I listed in Part 2, here are seven more. We'll conclude the list in Part 4.

Rest when you need to

A good howl every now and then is very cathartic

A little dance before heading out the door for a nice walk puts you in a great mood

A good head to toe stretch before your walk is also helpful

A great attitude goes a long way in assuring a fun day

Keep your ears clean and listen more than you talk

Always be making friends

Living with Hope, Part 2

2011-09-25T05:02:00.000-07:00

In Part 1, I introduced Hope, my three-legged rescued Husky. Here in Part 2, you'll begin to see, as I did, that this is no ordinary dog.

For the first few weeks that Hope and I lived together, she was in heat and then, when that ended, was spayed and recovering from the surgery. So we kept pretty close to home. Then finally I got to take her for a walk in the beautiful park across the street. I tried not to think about her former life and feel sorry for her -- the advice I had been given was to treat her with the same affection and disclipline one would have for any dog. And yet it was clearly so difficult for her to walk, which at first was just heartbreaking to see. To keep her balance, she has to tilt her front leg toward the center of her body. This results in a distinct bobbing motion and a lot of huffing and puffing. I couldn't help but tear up. And then it happened.

We were walking by a large oak tree, and a squirrel ran up the trunk. Before I knew what was happening, Hope took a verticle six foot leap off the ground right into the crook of the tree after that squirrel. I was dumbfounded.

Once up there, she did need help getting down, but that leap took my breath away. I wondered what else she could do that she hadn't showed me yet? Plenty, it turned out.

I began taking her to area dog parks. She had apparently not been around many dogs, because her socialization skills needed a lot of work. But she learned quickly and began to establish friendships. That was great and really heartwarming but not unexpected. What was truly amazing was how she could run.

Gone is the awkard bobbing and labored breathing. When she runs, Hope's back legs propel her forward so fast, and she keeps her body so close to the ground, that you can't even see she is missing a leg. People whose first glance of her is while she is running are shocked when she stops and they then see that her left front leg is missing.

And oh, the joy she feels when she runs. It's unmistakeable.

In my next post I'll share what the dog park has ended up meaning for both of us. Meanwhile, here is the beginning of a lengthy list of life and work lessons we humans in Hope's world have learned from her. More in Part 3.

Always believe things will get better.

Take help when it is offered, especially if it moves you toward achieving your vision.

A skip in your step isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Not everyone will "get" you -- focus on those who do.

Everyone is awkward at something.

Everyone is great at something.

Living with Hope, Part 1

2011-09-24T07:58:00.000-07:00

Our esteemed colleague Jim Mueller recently blogged about "hope-whispering," approaching life and work with optimism especially in these challenging times. I particularly loved that phrase because I have a really inspiring three-legged Husky named Hope. With your indulgence, I'm going to post a few thoughts about her over the next few days. There are so many ways her courage and how she embraces life can be an important touchstone for us as we continue our hard and sometimes discouraging work to make the world a better place.

Today I'll share her history. Hope was found on the streets of Miami where she had somehow survived over what appears to have been a significant period of time. She was about a year old, alone, dirty, skinny, in heat, petrified and missing a left front leg. She was rescued and named by the all-volunteer nonprofit group South Florida Siberian Husky Rescue (SFSHR) .

I had just applied to the group and been accepted as an approved adopter, and Hope ended up coming to me. I don't know who was more nervous about this turn of events. I hadn't had a pet for many years and certainly had no experience with abused and physically challenged un-housebroken dogs in heat! My most pressing concerns were how to walk her on a leash in a way that she could find a comfortable gate and how to get her diaper on and off (necessary until her heat ended and she could be spayed). It also quickly became clear that she was petrified of men, was insecure about being touched and had huge trust issues in general.

While the people at SFSHR were really helpful and supportive, of course ultimately it was up to Hope and me to create our life together. As we both began to put one foot in front of the other to fashion that life, I had no way of knowing how profoundly Hope would affect me (and everyone who met her) and change my life. Stay tuned for the rest of the story.

Boards - Your Chief Administrator Wants You to Learn and Practice CEO Evaluation

2011-09-06T09:59:00.000-07:00

Ask board members to list their responsibilities and most will include the supervision of the CEO. However, according to the findings of CompassPoint and Meyer Foundation researchers as reported in Daring to Lead 2011: A National Study of Nonprofit Executive Leadership, there is apparently a disconnect between what board members acknowledge as their responsibilities and what they take on, because close to half of the CEOs surveyed reported that they had not had a performance review within the past year. Adding concern, of those boards that do ensure their CEOs are reviewed, more than two-thirds may not be particularly skilled at the process, judging by the report that fewer than one-third of CEOs found their review either somewhat useful or very useful.

With CEOs clamoring for effective feedback there are evaluation basics that every board can incorporate. Assign a month within which the CEO review will be done, add it to your compliance calendar and make a commitment to follow through. Ask the CEO to consider process and goals and to explain what he or she feels will make the review valuable on both a personal and organizational level. Gather input from the entire board. Then select a few board members to sit down with the CEO to negotiate what the review will consist of. Be sure success measures and deadlines are clearly defined so that everyone has a clear picture of what it will look like when the CEO has successfully met all expectations. Provide interim assessments that ensure everyone is still on the same page and that movement toward goal achievement is on track. (See “Evaluating the Top Administrator: A New Approach” for more.)

But what takes evaluation beyond the basics and ensures an effective result? I would like to learn what those boards that are providing “very useful” feedback are doing. I’d also like to hear from CEOs about what would make their reviews satisfying and helpful. Are there tips that you can share with your colleagues and partners? Perhaps you’ve asked a former board chair to lead the process or brought in a consultant to guide it. Maybe you’ve found a book or article that provided helpful insights into the process or content. All input is encouraged.

An Open Question to Board Chairs: Do You Dare to Lead?

2011-08-19T12:18:00.000-07:00

Executive directors have thrown down the gauntlet. In “Daring to Lead 2011: A National Study of Nonprofit Executive Leadership” conducted by CompassPoint and the Meyer Foundation, only 20 percent of those surveyed reported being satisfied with their board’s performance. While a few of these executive directors might have a personality conflict with their current chair or have felt particularly frustrated with their board the day they responded, there must be something more significant going on to account for 80 percent of chief administrators indicating dissatisfaction with their boards.

Determining the underlying factor(s) is particularly important in today’s rapidly changing environment where boards must be strong, strategic and steadfast so that their organizations can be responsive and achieve relevant results. Research by the likes of Herman, Renz and Heimovics, Nobbie and Brudney and others have made very clear that there is a relationship between the effectiveness of a board and the effectiveness of the organization for which the board works. While none could prove causality, each found that highly effective organizations have highly effective boards.

I don’t believe that an organization’s effectiveness can be laid at the feet of just one person. Yet, I do believe that you, as board chair, have opportunity and influence that can be brought to bear in ways that you perhaps have not tested. Be honest with yourself. What more could you do to ensure a stronger board, and ultimately a stronger organization?

For instance, research again tells us that highly effective boards use more proven practices than less effective boards. There are a lot of accepted practices out there that are actually based on myth. Are you just propagating these or are you analyzing their effectiveness? Are you making the effort to regularly read or participate in workshops and webinars to learn about governance practices rooted in science? Are you implementing what you’ve learned? If not, why not?

As an unknown sage once said, “Hope is not a method.” You cannot afford to merely come in once a month to chair a meeting, check in occasionally with your executive director and write your column for the newsletter and expect an exceptional board to emerge. Nor can you rely on years of experience with a multitude of boards. The world has changed too much. If you dare to lead, tell us what you are doing differently and what impact it has made.

Succession Planning: Is Your Board Prepared for Transition?

2011-07-18T15:38:00.000-07:00

Everyone is talking about succession planning today. Much of the conversation is motivated by the large numbers of baby boomer executives expected to retire in the next few years. While this is a real concern deserving of our strategic attention, I have to wonder why so little attention is paid to succession on our boards of directors. After all, turnover is virtually an everyday occurrence on boards. Term limits and life’s challenges move people out of office or off the board altogether on a regular basis; and fewer and fewer individuals are stepping up and into the vacated leadership positions. The result is that boards are often forced to choose creative approaches to filling the empty chairs, such as allowing people to share the leadership responsibilities or conferring key positions on inexperienced talent. Unfortunately, experience tells us that such solutions typically result in a loss of organizational momentum or effectiveness. But, this needn’t be the case if we will commit to adequately preparing our boards for transition.

I doubt there is anything we can do to bring back the days where people will spend a decade or more working their way up to a coveted leadership position. But a strong succession plan is within reach of every organization. To see how, we must first consider what a succession plan really is, and what it isn’t. It isn’t about knowing who the next three board chairs will be. It is ensuring that you have a strong board with clear procedures in place, where everyone understands the big picture, is engaged and knows his or her role. In other words, the best succession plan is having a board that regularly operates under proven practices because a board like that will be able to continue to perform effectively regardless of what position may turn up empty tomorrow or the next day.

To determine if your board is prepared for the inevitable expected – to say nothing of sudden – transitions, answer the questions below.
 Does your board have criteria for membership?
 Does your board maintain a current pool of good prospects for board membership by continuously identifying and cultivating potential members?
 Does your board “test out” potential board members by encouraging committee or other participation first?
 Does each individual on your board have a job description?
 Does your board chair have a job description?
 Has each individual on your board gone through an orientation?
 Does your board share a collective vision for the community?
 Does your board share a passion for the mission of the organization?
 Does each individual on your board have ready access to a copy of the bylaws?
 Do the bylaws indicate how the transfer of power will operate under both normal and extenuating circumstances?
 Does your organization operate according to its bylaws?
 Are the expectations of your board members clear?
 Are board members that fail to live up to their expectations asked off the board? (Is this a given, regardless of the person’s affluence or influence?)
 Are your board members provided board education at every meeting?
 Does each individual on your board understand the issues critical to the organization’s mission?
 Do your board agendas encourage participation around substantive issues?
 Are decisions consistently made on the basis of your organization’s mission, vision, guiding principles as well as defined criteria for success?
 Is every individual on your board offered opportunities for leadership?
 Do your board members know each other well enough to look forward to working with one another?
 Does your board take time at most meetings to evaluate what it is doing well and what it could do better?
 Does your board do an annual self-evaluation?
 Does your board make changes in its behavior on the basis of its evaluations?
 Does each committee have a purpose?
 Does each committee have goals?
 Are your committees held accountable for achieving their goals?
 Does your board have a crisis management plan in place?

If you answered “no” or “only sometimes” to most of these questions, you may be left wondering if there is a future for your organization when one or more of your key leaders leave. Don’t let that happen. Make a commitment today to begin working on those conditions to which you were not able to answer a resounding “yes” and soon you’ll realize that succession is no longer an issue because your board is functioning efficiently and effectively no matter who is in the driver’s seat.

Our Boards Must Understand How They Operate

2011-03-05T22:13:00.000-08:00

I just finished analyzing a governance assessment completed by 15 different organizations participating in a board building program sponsored by our local Community Foundation. It was fascinating. In many cases there would be one person from an organization that would answer the question in the affirmative about whether that organization had a Whistleblower Policy or a Records Retention policy – policies every organization must have. The rest of the respondents would answer “no” or “I don’t know.” In each of these cases, the executive director/CEO completed the survey along with board members. While I didn’t have the access required to manipulate the data, I’d bet my bottom dollar it was the executive director/CEO that was correctly answering the question because he or she was the one who ensured compliance. Even the answers to questions such as whether the organization employs term limits or a consent agenda revealed that oftentimes more than half the board members did not know if they did or didn’t.

While not surprised, I must admit I’m a bit disappointed. Clearly the majority of these organizations are operating according to proven practices, but the board is not aware of it. According to their answers to the question about the ease of getting a quorum, it doesn’t appear the problem lies with nonattendance. It seems as if the chief administrative officer is implementing the right policies and procedures but failing to share this with the board along the way.

What is the answer? First, maybe it’s time that the executive director/CEO turn over the implementation of board-related responsibilities to the board. Using the example above, this would mean that the development and dissemination of policies would be done by the board. And, if the board handles the job, the members would know the policies exist.

Second, perhaps the content of board education should be changed to focus more on proven practices and how the board complies with such practices. The bylaws committee might mention what section in the bylaws is guiding each action. The board development committee might create more or different talking points or initiate a short quiz at each board meeting designed to test whether the board knows how it is/should be operating. The orientation might be enhanced to ensure new board members understand what is expected and why.

Finally, there has to be a better communication. At meetings the board chair might make it a point to explain why certain actions are being taken. Committees might use a report form that spells out how recommendations relate to the organization’s strategic initiatives the budget, staffing and so on.

Hopefully, by working together more as a board each member of the board will know exactly how the board operates and why. Ultimately, that has to result in a more effective board.

Painless Giving

2011-01-29T14:59:00.000-08:00

By Terrie Temkin

Last month I blogged about three graduate students at Rutgers University that made a life-long pledge to give a significant portion of their incomes to those less fortunate. A common response I got to the post was similar to what the three themselves have heard: “How admirable. But I wonder how long they’ll maintain that pledge once they start having families and facing the everyday responsibilities of a mortgage and car payments? But must these commitments be mutually exclusive? Can’t one still give generously without negatively impacting one’s lifestyle? There are those that would answer a resounding “no” to the first question and “yes” to the second.

After posting that last blog, I heard back almost immediately from a colleague, Dr. Donna Goldstein. She wanted to share what she does to make a difference in others’ lives that take little more from her than her time. One idea she presented is that when she goes to the grocery store she takes liberal advantage of the frequent two for one offers, even though she rarely needs the second item. She keeps the one she needs and donates the second to her local food bank. She also haunts the second-hand stores, often finding just the perfect item for her wardrobe or home. She takes the money she saves by not buying new and donates it. On top of the good feeling she gets from that, she enjoys the pleasure of the hunt.

My brother, Dr. Larry Temkin, is a Professor II in the Philosophy Department at Rutgers. A moral philosopher internationally recognized for his work on inequality, he lectures on this topic regularly. He tells his students that while some, like Donna, may actually prefer finding something unique at the second-hand store, they can still buy new and make philanthropic contributions, all without necessarily affecting their desired lifestyle. As an example he might suggest that perhaps they have been lusting over a special pair of jeans that cost $150. They are going to buy the jeans, but they just haven’t gotten around to it. Then one day, the jeans go on sale. They pick them up for half off. They were perfectly willing to buy the jeans at $150, but only had to spend $75. They could take the $75 they saved and donate that to charity without taking a dime from the pocket they know they should be designating for charitable giving.

On a smaller scale – that does add up – they can become coupon shoppers. Fifty cents here, two dollars there… If they put aside their savings, in short order they will have a full piggy-bank to share with someone less fortunate. Again, it’s all out of money they have mentally already spent, so it seems less onerous than having to come up with “extra” money that they can donate. And, of course, if they are among those that empties the change from their pockets each night and throws it into a can to sit for years and years, they have a ready source of cash that will never be missed.

I’d love to hear your suggestions for painless giving.

What Everyman Can Learn from Student Philanthropists

2010-12-22T11:23:00.000-08:00

I’m an avid NPR listener. For awhile, now, I’ve regularly been hearing a message from the Community Foundation of Broward (Florida) on my local station that goes something like this: Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are encouraging their fellow billionaires to pledge half their fortunes to charity. But why let them have all the fun. You can participate in the joy of giving by making a gift through the Community Foundation.

I don’t know how well people are responding to this proposition. While I think it’s extremely clever and I hope it’s successful, I’m sure a large number dismiss it, believing that the Gates and Buffets of the world can afford to give half their money away to charity and never even miss it. After all, Gates’ 2010 estimated net worth is $54 billion and most of us assume that one can still live pretty nicely on $27 billion. But for Main Street USA, where, according to the Federal Reserve Board’s 2010 survey, half of Americans have a net worth of less than $84,000, giving away a significant portion of your money to charity doesn’t seem very realistic.

Yet, three graduate students at Rutgers University think it’s doable. Philosophy majors Nick Beckstead, Tim Campbell and Mark Lee have made their own significant pledge to give away a set percentage of their annual income to causes that they feel will do the most good in the world – not just over the next few years, but for life.

The three say they were influenced by Australian applied ethics philosopher Peter Singer, who holds dual appointments as the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University and Laureate Professor at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne. In 1972 Singer published an essay entitled “Famine, Affluence and Morality,” in response to the mass starvation found in Bangladesh. In that article Singer argues that it is a moral imperative for persons of affluence to give more to humanitarian causes than they typically do: "People do not feel in any way ashamed or guilty about spending money on new clothes or a new car instead of giving it to famine relief. (Indeed, the alternative does not occur to them.) This way of looking at the matter cannot be justified. When we buy new clothes not to keep ourselves warm but to look 'well-dressed' we are not providing for any important need."

Few would classify graduate students as affluent and therefore individuals to be held to Singer’s standard. But in a December 11, 2010 Wall Street Journal article by Shelly Banjo, “Pledging to Give What They Can,” Beckstead says. "Someone who makes $25,000 is in the top 3% of the world's wage earners." Campbell adds, "It puts things into perspective and makes you realize you're on a much higher ladder than you think."

When I read the Wall Street Journal article I was incredibly impressed and began sharing the story with friends, family and colleagues. The responses I got all credited the three for pledging something so admirable. But, almost to a person added that they’d like to follow the three over the next 10 years as they graduate, start to have families and take on obligations for feeding, sheltering, educating and paying health care costs for those families – especially in America, where the costs for such basics are far more than in many other parts of the world.

The three have obviously been told this to their face. Beckstead is again quoted in the Wall Street Journal article as saying, "When people see us pledging to give away their income, some are critical and say this is an idealistic idea that they'll realize is unworkable in the real world. We think otherwise; this is a long-term decision."

I believe that a clear vision and commitment to that vision are the first steps in actually creating the world we all want to live in. Beckstead, Campbell and Lee have that vision and commitment. Whether or not they move away over the years from the level of financial commitment to which they’ve recently pledged, they undoubtedly will continue to give. And,right now they serve as extraordinary role models. Obviously, they are role models for other young people, who might be influenced to give more of their discretionary funds to charity or even join or start a chapter of Giving What We Can – an organization pioneered in Oxford, England that the three are bringing to Rutgers. But they, probably more than Gates and Buffet, are role models for the rest of us too. After all, if they can make this commitment on a 20-something’s salary, the rest of us should be able to pledge at least a bit more.

There is beautiful saying by Leo Burnett, “If you reach for the stars, you may not quite get one, but you won’t come up with a handful of mud either.” Keep reaching Nick Beckstead, Tim Campbell and Mark Lee.

All the More Reason for Nonprofits to Collaborate…

2010-11-23T15:00:00.000-08:00

I recently returned from the BoardSource Leadership Forum in San Francisco. BoardSource President and CEO Linda Crompton opened the convening. One of her comments was that innovation is not necessarily an event or a singular killer idea. It tends to be emergent – the result of group interaction.

I was not home more than a day before my business partner, Gail Meltzer, send me a YouTube video featuring Steven Johnson who wrote Where Good Ideas Come From. In it, Johnson suggests that true innovation comes from a series of “slow hunches” that build on one another and require time to truly incubate. Most often, he says, it is the collision of idea from others that makes the hunch lurking at the back of one person’s mind actually develop into something worthwhile. He states, therefore, that we must find spaces that will allow people with different ideas to come together and bounce those ideas off one another. He offers the analogy of the coffee houses and salons of the early 20th Century that resulted in such great art and literature.

If Crompton and Johnson are correct, then the leadership of organizations that focus internally – that is, determining how they can become better funded, attract the strongest board or gain a reputation as the ‘premier organization’ in their field – are actually working counter-productively to that end. Their organizations will never be recognized as exceptional if they don’t innovate. And, as long as they choose to avoid the interactions with the larger environment that lead to the cross-fertilization of ideas, they are doomed to merely doing more of the ‘same old, same old.’

In my mind this means that leaders must create opportunities to meet frequently with their counterparts in a wide variety of organizational entities to dialog about and to piggy-back off of ideas. The entities they choose to meet with must not only be those that are doing similar work, or that share similar visions for the future, but organizational entities that bring very different viewpoints to the table.

Obviously, this requires a certain level of trust. Therefore, the convening groups will want some rules of engagement. The guidelines for brainstorming are appropriate here – e.g., to generate as many ideas as possible, to avoid judgment, to allow time for clarification, etc. The most important guideline, however, is adopting an attitude that, once thrown out, an idea belongs to the group as a whole. Any modifications of that idea are for the benefit of the community as a whole.

Just think what we could accomplish in our communities if we all took this approach!

Study on Women Donors Presents Lessons for Board Recruitment

2010-11-16T20:45:00.000-08:00

A study(1) released this week by the Women’s Philanthropy Institute at Indiana University’s Center on Philanthropy showed that women are the largest donors. They give more in actual dollars and they give more frequently than men. This is a reality that holds true regardless of the women’s own economic status; and, the disparity of giving increases with the individuals’ income. For instance, 35.2 percent of women who earn $23,509 or less annually make charitable contributions, opposed to 27.5 percent of men who earn at that same level. When income rises to at least $103,000, 96 percent of women give to charity, while only 75 percent of men of similar means give. The results, culled from a sample of 8,000 American households, also revealed that women typically give because they care about the work that is being done. Men tend to give because they are asked.

This study is already shaking up many who have traditionally turned to powerful men in the community for large financial commitments. However, it should also shake up those who are recruiting for boards of directors. According to the Urban Institute study, “Nonprofit Governance in the United States: Findings on performance and accountability from the first national representative study,”(2) while women make up almost half of all boards in the US (46 percent), they tend to be found on the boards of smaller organizations – typically organizations with budgets under $100,000. The percentage of women serving on the largest (budgets of $40 million plus), most prestigious boards is only 29 percent.

One reason for the above may be that, according to Ostrower’s findings, women often do not make the cut when organizations use financial skills and reputation in the community (“affluence and influence”) as recruiting criteria. If board members are expected to be among the biggest and most committed givers, the Women’s Philanthropy Institute’s study should cause us to question whether organizations are shooting themselves in the foot when they actively solicit more men than women.

Perhaps of even more import is the difference the study found in why people give. Will Brown’s work (3) shows that belief in the mission is the most important factor related to board performance. Conversely, Candace Widmer (4), in a now classic study, found that joining a board because a friend asks is a temporary incentive and provides neither ongoing rewards nor participation. So, unless the organization is quickly able to provide these board members with other, more meaningful incentives, they will not stay involved. Does it not make more sense, therefore, to recruit those who are already motivated by what the organization is doing? We now know empirically, this means recruiting more women with a demonstrated interest in our organization’s mission.

________
1) Mesch, Debra. “Women Give 2010.” The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University, 2010
2) Ostrower, Francie. “Nonprofit Governance in the United States: Findings on performance and accountability from the first national representative study.” The Urban Institute, 2007
3) Brown, Will. Presentation at the Midwest Center for Nonprofit Leadership Conference, “Boards in Uncertain Times: Exploring the implications of financial, technological and generational change for nonprofit governance.” April 2009.
4) Widmer, Candace. “Why Board Members Participate.” Journal of Voluntary Action, 1985

CEO’S ARREST SHOULD BE NOTED IN THE MINUTES

2010-09-30T19:58:00.000-07:00

Q: Our CEO was recently arrested for a hit and run that resulted in some property damage. The situation made the newspapers. While the incident itself has been both legally resolved and handled internally in executive session, the board is divided about how to record this in our minutes. Some feel the issue should be dealt with head on. Others would prefer to merely indicate that a personnel issue was discussed and so noted in the individual's file. There is a concern that we may be exposing ourselves to a charge of libel by naming the CEO as the person discussed. How private are such personnel issues?

A: I’m sure a lot of people out there are breathing a sigh of relief that they don’t have to deal with your situation. But, the reality is that this could happen in any organization at any time. CEOs are people and people can get into messy situations. What you’ve shared happens more often than you might think.

The privacy issue you raise actually varies from state to state, so you should definitely consult a lawyer in your community. Assuming, though, that this is not a concern where you live, let me offer some other important issues for your consideration.

Normally, I subscribe to the “less is more” school of minutes. However, in this particular instance, where there was a serious offense, an arrest, it made the papers and led to some sort of restitution, I think you have to be more explicit than “a personnel issue was discussed and so noted in the individual’s file” – unless, the board opted to do nothing about it. In that case, as a colleague of mine suggests, you want to bury the subject by making any notation in the minutes as weak as possible.

A critical question that should play a role in your decision-making is, “Did the hit and run occur while the CEO was on organizational business?” If so, your response must be stronger than if it did not. But, in either case, my concern is that donors and other supporters undoubtedly read about the incident – especially if your organization is a prominent one and/or your CEO is a fairly public figure. They will question whether and how the board acted on this. If they can’t be confident that you took this seriously and acted in a responsible manner, they may doubt the board’s ability to steward the organization during challenging times. This could lead them to jump ship.

There should be no exposure to a libel charge as long as you stay with the facts and avoid anything that is supposition, since libel requires misrepresentation. (Just a reminder for other organizations that may find themselves in a similar situation, an arrest is not a conviction.) Actually, according to Steve Nill, a lawyer I consulted on this matter, the more public a figure your CEO is, the less you have to worry because that person would have to prove you acted maliciously – that is, that you knowingly included false information in the minutes.

To protect both the board and the organization, though, I would also call your insurance company. Tell your claims representative about the situation. Often insurance companies require that they be notified so that they are not surprised if someone decides to sue. But even if your company doesn’t require such notification, the representative may have some excellent suggestions for proceeding forward at this time. Some insurance companies will even provide you with legal counsel to help you avoid potential pitfalls.

One last thought… If you don’t have crisis management policies already in place, your board should run, not walk, to grab its collective pen! It is especially essential to have a plan for dealing with personnel issues like this that have the potential for becoming public, because unfortunately, as I indicated at the beginning, incidents like this or embezzlement of organizational funds, sexual harassment, and child pornography – to name just a few – tend to crop up more often then we’d care to admit. And they can leave the organization with serious egg on its face.

The plan might be to sweep any such incidents under the rug (Not my recommendation, by the way!), wait for the media to find you and pray that they don’t, or get out in front of the incidents with the media. If you decide to speak out, the plan should indicate who will serve as the voice of the organization. The plan is a good place to consider consequences for wayward individuals, as well. It’s always easier to decide these things in the abstract, when the emotions tied in with any specific individual are not at play.

A special thank you to Stephen Nill, J.D., GPC. and the founder/CEO of CharityChannel.com, for his added insights to this response.

Note should be made that even though an attorney was consulted in the construction of this answer, the above should not be construed as legal advice. Questions such as these are sent with minimal information and the answers are necessarily broad.

Who Should Facilitate the Exit Interview?

2010-08-26T10:33:00.000-07:00

The other day a respected colleague and good friend, Carol Weisman, sent a copy of her latest blog post entitled, “Don’t Just Whack’em and Plaque’em: Exit Interviews for Retiring Board Members.” As all of Carol’s writings, it dealt with an important subject, was informative and had me in stitches – Carol is one of the smartest and funniest people I know. She spoke to the value of doing an exit interview and shared five excellent questions to use in such a situation. My only quarrel was that she put the responsibility for doing the exit interview on the executive director. I have always believed an exit interview should be conducted by the board, in the person of the chair or a member of the governance/board development committee.

She and I went back and forth with our arguments. She felt that the executive director is the constant – the one who will be there after the entire board turns over. I reasoned that there is no guarantee that the executive director will be there tomorrow, let alone years down the road. I know too many organizations that make that position a revolving door. But even in the most stable organizations, a lot of long-time executive directors are reaching the point where retirement is starting to look pretty good. We’re also starting to see a number of less fortunate dying with their boots on.

Carol asked me to honestly examine how many boards step up to the plate and take on this responsibility. While I concede that the job often defaults to the executive director, by accepting that role, the executive director makes it that much easier for the board to abdicate its responsibility in the future. It is the board that benefits most from learning what it could/should be doing differently to maximize, or at least improve, its directors’ experiences. The interviewer should be taking notes that can be kept in a board book for easy referral by future boards. Carol argued that future boards won’t bother to look back. I of the “you get what you expect school” retorted that debriefing should be an expected part of the job. After heating up cyber-space for a couple of days, we agreed to disagree.

However, I was like the store clerk who gets in an argument with a customer. Long after the customer leaves, the clerk is whining about that customer to everyone else she comes in contact with that day. I ran the arguments by another colleague, Jane Garthson. Jane said definitively that it was the board’s job to conduct exit interviews. However – sneaky devil! – she said she understood if an executive director wanted to conduct his or her own exit interview to learn what he or she might do differently in the future. So, this brings me to the question of the day. What, if any, are the arguments that we are all missing? If you even agree that exit interviews for departing board members are valuable, who do you want to see facilitating them? Why?

Should Board Members’ Contributions Be Designated To Pay For Their Education?

2010-07-26T18:52:00.000-07:00

I was speaking with a couple of colleagues the other day and the subject of board contributions came up. Later in the conversation we transitioned into the importance of ongoing board education and organizations building a sufficiently-large line item into their budgets for this. And then the idea bubbled up: What if one of the expectations of board service was that a portion of each board member’s personal contribution to the organization went to pay specifically for board education?

Such an expectation would do several things. It would communicate to the world that the organization believes an educated board is important. It would provide necessary dollars for such board education, without cutting into dollars dedicated to programming. And, it would help board members value the education the organization provides, because research affirms that people ascribe more value to something for which they pay rather than get for free.

There are some issues to consider. When my colleagues and I were talking, someone arbitrarily threw out $500 as the portion of each board member’s contribution that would go into this board education fund. While a substantial amount, with an average-sized board of 16, that only puts $8000 into the education coffer. True, $8000 is more than most boards currently devote to board education. But, $8000 won’t go far if the money is to be used for a true retreat, conference expenses or coaching, for instance. Asking for a number larger than $500 might be a non-starter for most boards – at least at this stage in the game. And, what happens in those organizations that ask for a personally meaningful gift from each board member instead of a contribution of a specific dollar amount? Yes, the leadership could opt to allot the entire board member contribution to its education fund, or designate a percentage, but how can any organization create an education budget if the ultimate total is an unknown? Perhaps the answer is that the board would still have to assign to the board education line a dollar amount from its general operating funds and use the contributions just to enhance its educational opportunities.

The biggest issue may be that some people will resent this set-aside, either out of principle or the belief that they do not need education – perhaps they’ve sat on many boards over the years and believe they have the job down pat. My guess is, though, this reality may be off-set by those that clamor to join a board that devotes so much attention to its board members and provides leadership training that they can then take back to their jobs or on to other organizations.

As someone who firmly believes in ongoing board education at every meeting, I love what this concept could “buy.” But I recognize it would require a major culture shift in most organizations. What do you see as the pros and cons? Is this an idea with sufficient value to push?

Should US Nonprofits Adopt a Patron System?

2010-07-15T08:35:00.000-07:00

I worked recently in Singapore. While I found many similarities in the ways nonprofits do business both there and here in the United States, I found differences as well. One of the biggest was their use of a patron system. Besides having what we would consider the familiar board structure with a chairman or president at the helm, a large number of organizations there also have a patron. Some even have a patron and a patron in chief. These are powerful individuals who wield tremendous influence. For instance, the patron in chief of Singapore’s Lyric Opera is the President of the Republic of Singapore. Its patron is the Minister for Education and Second Minister for Defense. The intent is that these individuals will provide support – including, in many cases, political clout – and encourage others to support the organization as well.

In the United States, our honorary boards could be considered the closest equivalent to the patron system of Singapore. Some organizations here are able to engage major players, such as the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Foundation which counts among its trustees James Baker, Dick Cheney, Alan Greenspan, Henry Kissinger and Donald Rumsfeld. But the number of organizations with the capability of attracting names of this caliber are far and few between. Would it be easier for nonprofits to attract a single patron? Would a patron help nonprofits that feel they lack sufficient access to affluence and influence?

I do believe that it would be easier to find a single patron than an honorary board. However, I do not believe that it would necessarily be easy. Think of all the nonprofits that have tried unsuccessfully to find a celebrity spokesperson. And, we certainly know how quickly a good name can become a liability. Tiger Woods, anyone? Singapore has experienced this with the patron system as well. The patron of their National Kidney Foundation, the wife of Goh Chok Tong, former Prime Minister of Singapore and current Chairman of the Central Bank, was forced to step down after defending the pay of the CEO, saying that his $600,000 (S) salary was “peanuts.” At least with an honorary board, one would hope there will be others whose reputations remain sterling, even if one of the names on that board turns bad.

As to whether having a patron would be helpful to organizations lacking affluence and influence...I'm not so sure. Singapore is a very small country. People tend to know one another and a patron's name alone carries clout. Here, the individual would have to be willing to actively use his/her influence on behalf of the organization to bring others along. Research done by Herman and Renz suggests that this does not happen as often as nonprofits hope. Besides, the reach of a single individual versus a larger group is necessarily limited, especially in a country the size of the United States.

So, even though I believe nonprofits in the United States can learn much from their counterparts in other countries, I'm not so sure I'd suggest our turning to a patron system here. But, I’m curious as to what others think. Is such a system an answer for us, especially in these difficult times?

So You Think Your Communications Officer Isn't Important . . .

2010-07-02T07:51:00.000-07:00

Just this year an illustrious professional career ends abruptly; a world-wide brand that spent millions of dollars over the years to build a sterling reputation, out in front of every one of its competitors, watches its status unravel; and an international conglomerate faces an industrial disaster and its iconic acronym stands to represent its biggest nightmare.

General Mc Crystal within a week – retired; Toyota within a month massively discounting cars and invigorating the US auto industry; and BP within a few days becoming the company formerly known as British Petroleum now known as BP -- Biggest Polluter.

Companies that have allocated enormous dollars to building a public face . . . the military and multinationals. And yet with their considerable resources, both financial and professional, they did not understand how quickly their reputation could unravel. How quickly their public profile could be tarnished and how extensive the damage could be.

Are you ready for this? Do you have the resilience to survive? It begs the question that as nonprofits perhaps we need to reconsider how we court the press. How important we think it is to be on TV or in print. Can we control our message more effectively using social media and web based outreach.

So you’re thinking of promoting your organization in the press anyway. Then be prepared. When you’re pitching a story, an interview or sending out a release do you know enough about the background of the reporter and the media outlet. Have you read enough of their prior stories or seen enough of their broadcast reporting to have an understanding of the nature and tone of their coverage? What is their writing style, do they have a personal agenda and does your message fit into that agenda. If not, beware – their agenda may take precedence over yours!

Are you prepared for a crisis? Do you have a communication’s plan that specifically addresses the conversation that you must have with your constituents the moment something considerable happens that impacts the community you serve.

Have you designated a spokesperson and is that person media trained. As a nonprofit whose financial health depends on donor participation public relations must be moved to the top of your agenda. Today, let’s ask ourselves could our organization survive a media hit. Then take a critical scan of your communications efforts and the persons responsible for this most important yet very delicate task.

Robyn Fern Perlman
Founding Principal
CoreStrategies For Nonprofits, Inc.

DEVELOPMENT AND PROGRAM REFUSE TO PLAY IN THE SAME SANDBOX

2010-05-26T21:22:00.000-07:00

Q: In our organization the Program and Development Departments work in silos. What is disconcerting is that they have no desire to work together. Development constantly complains that Program doesn’t share “its” list of donors or turn in required reports. Program complains that Development siphons needed resources from the mission and that its requests and grant proposals unnecessarily add to Program’s work load. A number of us feel this is not the way to do business, but we haven’t been able to convince everyone to play together nicely in the same sandbox. Do you have any suggestions to change the culture here?

A: If it makes you feel any better, the situation you describe is, unfortunately, not that uncommon. However, you are smart to want to change it. People invest in impact and impact comes through effective programming. But, effective programming costs money. The greater divide between Program and Development, the less successful Development can be in bringing in the dollars that will support the program.

While there is no single or easy answer, there are a few things I suggest trying. All start with the organization’s vision for the community. I would bring the entire staff together to affirm both the picture of how the community will be different – better – as a result of the organization’s efforts, and the staff’s commitment to achieving that vision. Sometimes, merely reminding people of what they are working toward and that everyone shares the same goal will be sufficient to get them to work more cooperatively.

If it is not, I might ask each department to consider its role in turning the vision into reality. Specifically, for what steps must it be responsible if the vision is to be actualized? What conditions will it have to meet? What resources – monetary, human, physical, etc. – will the department require to accomplish each step? Once these questions are answered, each department will have a better idea of what it can do on its own and what it needs help to accomplish. Usually people realize rather quickly that they have to go outside their department in order to achieve their goals, again making them more willing to work together.

Of course, you can always acknowledge the divide you see, bring the bickering departments together and have them take turns asking each other why given procedures are in place or why certain information is requested. Insist that the group that asks the question really listen to the response! Allow people the opportunity to clarify the answers they heard. Only at that point, give members of that group a chance to share why they find the requirement unnecessary or onerous. Let them offer alternative approaches. Then, open the floor for discussion.

If you still face resistance after all this, ask the departments to take this next step. Give them pads of Post-It notes in two colors. Designate one color to represent the resources – both tangible and intangible – the department needs. Designate the other color to represent the resources the department has. Have each department begin jotting down resources – one per page. With the resources the department has available it is important to list all the assets, not just those it has that it has determined it will need to accomplish its own goals. Post these on a wall gallery-style, where representatives from each department can come by and see if any other department has the resources it needs. Be sure to note in some way which asset came from which department – e.g., by writing the department’s name on each page or by placing the pages on the wall under an identifying banner. In most cases, the needed resources will be available in-house. This opens yet one more avenue for collaboration between departments.

There may still be some additional resources required by one or more of the departments. You can have representatives from each department sit down and discuss who they know in the community that might have the needed resources. Based on the answers, they can then discuss who from within your organization might have an established relationship with that individual or organization and could make the ask. Such an approach emphasizes the “we’re all in this together” attitude that is so important.

These simple exercises remind everyone that they are each a part of something larger than just their own department and that they owe it to the community to cooperate with anyone – internally or externally – that can help them meet that commitment to the community. The discussion of who or what organization(s) outside their own institution might be able and willing to contribute resources acts as a not-so-subtle reminder that if others outside their organization are willing to work selflessly with them, there is no room for department-centric feelings within the institution.

The culture in your organization will not change overnight. Departments will have to be encouraged to share the results of their efforts with the other departments so everyone can recognize the impacts being made. The organization’s leadership will have to share organization-wide outcomes with all the departments and recognize and reward the sharing of resources. But, over time, the silos will begin coming down.

I'm Not Moving, I'm Stuck

2010-05-15T15:36:00.000-07:00

So we're stuck. Why does it seem that "stuck" although not unique to the nonprofit sector seems intractable in many nonprofit organizations. Why is it that we artfully craft mission and vision statements that reflect our desire to change communities, change outcomes and change the world yet we refuse time and again to change the business of our organization.

Neale Donald Walsch known for his "Conversations With God," series discusses change in his most recent book, "When Everything Changes Change Everything." Walsh writes, "If when everything changes, you wish to change everything, the first thing you may wish to change is your idea about why change occurs." He continues by suggesting that, "change occurs because of who you are and why you are here." Is it not appropriate for us as leaders, donors and beneficiaries of the programs and ideas pushed out through our nonprofit organizations to ask the same question from a business perspective. Who are we and why are we here ... now ... today and into the future.

"Change occurs because you want it to occur," says Walsh. "Everything that changes, changes at your direction." His also suggests that until we become conscious of this change it may manifest itself through a silent shift. This shift, as a response to circumstances, instinctly begins to set change in motion so that, hopefully, we become aware and can successfully grow and adapt. How many times have we squashed the incubation of silent shifts in our organizations rather than picking up the mantel of change. How often are we given an opportunity to change, at our own direction, but we remain stuck.

Walsh describes life as being functional. When life moves too far off functionality it "puts in place an adaptaton . . . which assures that life remains sustainable." But not just as it was but rather "through it's new changed form . . . "

So I ask how will nonprofits remain sustainable and fullfull their promises if the calls to action are merely drowned out by, "I'm not moving, I'm stuck!

Should We Be Considering Professional Board Chairs?

2010-04-28T20:27:00.000-07:00

I recently returned from Australia where I facilitated a series of master classes in governance. While the US and Australian systems are similar, there are some distinct differences. One, to which I was introduced this trip, is a trend toward hiring professional board chairs. Though not wide-spread, it is prevalent enough that there are actually companies there that provide such individuals to organizations as required.

Clearly, there are advantages to such a concept. You ostensibly get a board chair that is unbiased, skilled and willing to give the time to the job since he or she is getting paid to do it. One would expect that such a person keeps up with the latest governance trends and has a broad perspective from working with different groups – both conditions that can lead to increased board effectiveness.

Some of the drawbacks are obvious, but not necessarily insurmountable. One board member complained to me that the professional board chair working in his organization was working with twenty other boards and often came to meetings unsure of which organization’s meeting she was actually at! I would think that far fewer than twenty boards may still be too many for a board chair to handle well. Of course, this is a relatively easy problem to circumvent. The board has an obligation to do its due diligence. A single question would have determined that this woman was over-committed. Still, in an emerging field where there may not be that many qualified individuals available for hire, organizations desperate for leadership may opt to move forward anyway and take their chances.

I would be concerned that any board chair for hire actually has the facilitation skills necessary to do the job effectively and is familiar with today’s proven governance practices. I meet a lot of people who tell me that they have chaired many boards over the years and know what they are doing. Unfortunately, I have observed that far too many of these individuals are mired in how things were done back in the days when they began their board service and are totally unaware of practices common throughout the sector now.

I also see the potential for conflict of interest. A professional board chair might work for several organizations with similar missions. While it could be advantageous to hire someone who has a depth of experience in your organization’s mission area, how can you be sure that your ideas, deliberations and decisions will remain in-house until they are ready to be shared with the community? Of course, this could prove an issue with anyone in the boardroom and if you deal with a true professional, this should not be a problem. More critically, the board chair is privy to discussions that can personally impact him or her, for instance whether the contract should be renewed and at what rate. If the organization has policies for dealing with such situations, this also can be handled in a transparent and judicious manner. Australia has the same duty of loyalty requirement we do in the US and conflict of interest has not been a sticking point for the nonprofits in that country.

The culture in the US may be the biggest barrier to such an idea taking hold here. I can foresee donors reacting negatively to the idea of having their money go to pay a professional board chair. So many already resent money being spent on even the most critical administrative fees. Link this to the expectation that has taken hold here – but not in Australia – that all board members must make a personal contribution and we have yet another potential obstacle. This expectation would imply the professional must “pay to play,” something that is unethical if not illegal. Yet, if the organization excludes the chair from the requirement, resentment is sure to build in the other board members who are held to the giving standard. They may already be upset, wondering why they shouldn’t get paid for their time.

Then, who wants to be the first to test the IRS response? Surely, as paying for a professional board chair is not accepted practice in the US, the board and organization may be liable for a hefty excise tax on that fee if it is deemed excess benefit.

Yet, I can’t help thinking about the potential benefit – boards running more efficiently and effectively. Acceptance of such a practice might even stimulate new jobs as individuals with the appropriate skills move into this arena and programs crop up to certify these professional board chairs!

Is this a bad idea if no organization is required to move in this direction or consider itself locked into a paid chair if it has used such a service in the past but now has the appropriate leadership in-house? What do you think?

Should We Insure the Founder?

2010-04-27T20:43:00.000-07:00

Q: I’m on the board of an all volunteer organization. The founder plays the role of a full-time – albeit uncompensated – executive director. Lately, as more and more has fallen on this individual’s shoulders, some of the board members have brought up the idea of taking out life insurance and disability policies on her. The rationale being expressed is two-fold. First, there is a desire to provide the organization with a financial cushion if she can no longer shepherd the organization forward and we have to go with no or greatly reduced funding during the period required to find and train someone new. Second, there are some who wish to compensate this person for all she has done thus far, and feel that taking out an insurance policy to benefit either her or her beneficiaries is an inexpensive way to accomplish this. I’ve never heard of this before and feel uncomfortable about it. Am I out of touch or are the members of this sub-group?

A: There are a number of issues inherent in your question. We have to look at each individually if you are to have an idea of how best to proceed. But, let me start by answering your direct question. Providing life insurance and disability policies to management-level employees is fairly common. These are usually relatively small policies that are included as part of an overall benefits package and negotiated or provided at the time of hire. The benefit generally equals a percentage of the annual salary and is paid out to the employees and/or their beneficiaries, not the organization.1

The provision of “key person” life insurance, to which I believe your board colleagues are referring, is less common in the nonprofit sector, but not unheard of. In this case, where the founder is, I assume, the face of the organization, the chief fund raiser, the administrator, and more, key person life insurance is appropriate because you are seeking to cover the organization for the loss of such critical skills over the period of time that it takes to get back on track. In fact, the situation you describe is a textbook example of when to purchase such insurance.

However, to me, more important than whether this sort of action is typical or appropriate, is the potential impact of these options. You indicate that the founder is doing all the work. Where is the board? The direct service volunteers? Succession planning is all about having the infrastructure in place whereby the organization can keep running smoothly even without the key player(s). (Read or listen to the 2010 CoreStrategies’ Consultants’ Roundtable on Succession Planning.) Your organization seemingly does not have such an infrastructure. My fear is that with your organization so reliant on a single individual, it will be hard to find someone with the desire or capability to take over the organization under such conditions. And, unless you do so in a timely manner, the organization will be forced to dissolve. This means that the insurance money that you collect will end up being turned over to another organization, since all assets of a nonprofit must go to another nonprofit with a similar mission upon its dissolution. I might suggest that you consider whether the premium money would be better spent on board training and/or the hiring of staff to provide some redundancy of skills so that the organization is not so dependent on the founder going forward.

If, as you indicate in your question, the board is concerned about recognizing the efforts of the founder/de facto executive director, it might choose to use the funds it intended to use to pay these premiums to provide her with an annual salary, even if it is a small one. That way the individual is guaranteed some compensation for her efforts at a time when she can personally benefit from it.

________________
1 About a year ago it was learned that a number of Fortune 500 companies had taken out life insurance policies on staff level employees, as opposed to management personnel as is typical. This was unbeknownst to the employees. The named beneficiary was the corporation. This created a public relations nightmare because the corporations were seen to be betting on and benefiting from their employees’ deaths – especially in those cases where the families of the deceased were unable to pay medical bills that had amassed or even burial costs and the corporations walked away with tens of thousands of dollars.

Stella!

2010-04-12T11:54:00.000-07:00

With the new social media, many, especially those of us of the baby boomer generation, experience nothing short of paralyzing fear when we think about meshing our public and private lives. We ask ourselves questions such as, “What if my students access my Facebook (FB) page? What if my boss catches a compromising tweet?” More appositely for nonprofit organizations, “What if a client or volunteer starts to trash the organization?” No longer can organizations control outgoing public messages. The official spokesperson becomes whomever decides to tweet, text or FB.

Is the new social media a paradigm shift? Must we have fear? Have we lost control of the who, what, where, when, why and how a message becomes public? I thought so. Then I began to think about Robert Putman and his piece entitled, Bowling Alone. In it, he hypothesizes and presents some analytical data that attempts to explain why baby boomers (and some include generation Xers) became a society of non-joiners. Reflecting on his writings and the one element I found missing from his analysis led me to the conclusion that we are not experiencing a paradigm shift. We are again becoming joiners, just in new and different ways. We are returning to the historical era of pre air-conditioning (AC) and pre urban sprawl (US).

Before AC and US, folks lived side-by-side with windows wide open during the hot summer months. Conversations, arguments, meetings and trysts were nearly impossible to conceal. People were unable to hide behind closed up car windows shaded with a dark tint. We heard everyone’s dog bark and everyone’s toilet flush. As Dr. Terrie Temkin described it--everyone knew everyone else’s dirty little secrets. Public and private lives were impossible to separate. As much as we may try to remain isolated in our own homes, cars and offices, and as much as we try to separate our professional and personal lives, our conversations once heard only by our neighbors pre AC and US are now amplified throughout cyberspace by those unseen and perhaps unknown. As Margaret J. Wheatley writes in Leadership and the New Science, “The invisible is more of an active player in our lives than ever before” (2006, p. 53). Privacy and communication control for nonprofit organizations is a thing of the past. Whereas in the 40s and 50s chatter and gossip was limited to neighbors, friends and co-workers, today its reach is limited only by the speed and sophistication of the technology employed.

As Heather Gowdy, et.al. write in Convergence (see previous blog), successful nonprofits, among other things, will, “Expand their reach and deepen their impact through networks and coalitions...” and they will strategically use new technology as part of an overall communication plan. The key to overcoming the new social media fear is to remember that it is a conversation and not a monologue. Engage wisely, listen sincerely and attentively, and ensure your responses are in line with the vision and values of your organization.

Should your organization use crowdsourcing and other forms of social media?

2010-03-29T12:27:00.000-07:00

Crowdsourcing is just one of the many forms of Web 2.0 or what is being referred to as the new social media. It is a combination of the two words crowd and outsourcing. According to Jeff Howe, “Crowdsourcing is the act of taking a job traditionally performed by a designated agent (usually an employee) and outsourcing it to an undefined, generally large group of people in the form of an open call.” Howe includes a second definition he calls the Soundbyte Version, “the application of Open Source principles to fields outside of software” (crowdsourcing.com).

An example of crowdsourcing about which most of you have probably heard is Wikipedia.com. Anyone with an internet connection can add or subtract information onto the website. Another example is the fundraising practice employed by the Red Cross in its effort to amass donations for earthquake recovery efforts in Haiti. Through its texting campaign the organization has raised over $5 million. Yet, this is just the tip of the open source iceberg and nonprofit organizations must take the time to educate themselves on these new trends (this process can be accomplished and propelled forward by the recruitment of members of the newer generations for board and staff positions).

When I started my nonprofit management master’s program in 2008, one of the first things taught was the need to control and manage a nonprofit’s outgoing public messages and to have a designated spokesperson. However, I do not believe that is going to be an effective posture to take if nonprofits want to survive over the next 10 years. In a research article written by Heather Gowdy, et. al., of La Piana Consulting and entitled, Convergence: How Five Trends will Reshape the Social Sector (http://www.lapiana.org/downloads/Convergence_Report_2009.pdf), the authors found that today people want sincere and authentic information, not prewritten and well-edited messages, and they want it from multiple sources. The authors write, “To have a credible voice in this environment, nonprofits need to empower everyone in their organization to be a spokesperson” (ibid, p. 10).

Crowdsourcing is only one way to use social media. More and more sites are being developed to garner merely minutes of social engagement in hundreds of people’s days through various forms of Web 2.0 and the network connections that accompany all those who participate. Tasks may include last minute event notifications, rallies, and many other forms of volunteerism. For more information, take a look at the following sites and see for yourself what is happening in the virtual nonprofit world. Maybe it is time to get onboard and stretch your communication reach. The new social media is not going away and it will never be static.

www.BeExtra.org

www.IfWeRantheWorld.com

www.AllforGood.org

www.WeAreMedia.org

www.nten.org

Use Your Vision to Find Untapped Resources

2010-03-27T17:09:00.000-07:00

The March 22 edition of Philanthropy Journal featured an article with the headline, Business partnerships seen boosting nonprofit causes. But, how do nonprofits identify the most appropriate partnerships? They can start by turning to their vision statements.

A well-written vision statement will have a community focus, that is, instead of speaking to how the organization will be seen – e.g., as the best, most successful, well recognized, etc. – it points to the impact it promises to make in the community. Most organizations have vision statements that actually reflect several such strategic impacts. For instance, a senior care facility might have a vision that commits to providing a warm, caring and safe environment where seniors requiring some level of outside support are able to spend their days living with dignity and respect at their full potential. In this case, the strategic impacts are 1) providing a warm, caring and safe environment for seniors; 2) helping seniors that require some level of outside support; and, 3) ensuring that these seniors have the opportunity to live to their fullest potential with dignity and respect.

Begin by identifying the strategic impacts in your vision statement. Then, for each, brainstorm those businesses or institutions that might also be interested in, or would benefit from, having a similar impact. In our example, those that might be interested in warm, caring and safe environments could include the police, security companies, other senior care facilities, real estate developers, families facing the need to find somewhere to place a loved one, families that had a bad experience when placing a loved one and who don’t want anyone else to go through something similar, doctors that know that their older patients do better – live longer and healthier – in such environments, nurses, home health companies, those that run training programs for nurses aides, and so on. Stretch. Get creative when listing possibilities.

After you have identified as many broad categories as possible for each strategic impact, determine which have the greatest capability to serve as a good strategic partner and/or to provide resources to your organization. Plug each of these types of businesses into a search engine such as Google, along with “vision” or “vision statement” and the words that make up your strategic intent. What will return are the specific businesses that share your beliefs, concerns and commitment. You now have several entities to approach and a common bond from which to start a conversation.

Avoid going in with hand outstretched. Research what their needs are and ask for an appointment to discuss how you might help each other accomplish your shared vision. Focus on advice – not money – at least at the beginning. People are almost always willing to offer intellectual capital. That often leads to money or gifts in kind however once they get to know your organization and become invested in it. In any case, your organization has successfully begun the important process of community engagement. That will bring its own rewards (the subject of another blog!).

Thanks to my colleague Steve Bowman of Conscious Governance in Australia for generously sharing this concept.

Do your bylaws include board member term limits?

2010-03-26T14:04:00.000-07:00

I would like to continue sharing some of the things I learned at the Boards in Action (BIA) Leadership Academy workshop I mentioned in my previous blog. As a newbie to the workings of nonprofit boards and organizations I am finding that many longtime board members are unaware of vital and helpful information available or where to find it. Indeed, as Eric Schmall Director of Consultation for the Center for Nonprofit Excellence writes, “Without having any exposure to ideal board practices, what chance does any well-intentioned board member have of knowing and advocating a better way?” (http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20100322/OPINION02/3220308/1018/OPINION/Community%20Challenge%20%7C%20Nonprofit%20boards%20can%20do%20better?GID=8H%20pJ5C9Y1Dvd8k6dqX3xQRvXmF480JgvDDLrad%20zsU=)

One ideal board practice is to implement term limits to your bylaws. CoreStrategies has advocated extensively on the subject, however at the risk of redundancy, let me try to illustrate it as Chuck Loring did to the crowd at the BIA Leadership Academy.

Loring said, “Fundraising is the best case example for term limits.” Let’s look at why. But first, let’s assume that all board members are responsible for fundraising—another best practice and more accurately described as an imperative!

Take a moment and think about where you meet and know people and we will call that your sphere of influence. For instance, friends and acquaintances are made at church, one’s children’s school, neighbors, work, etc. So board member A has a sphere of influence, as does B and C. Over time, those spheres will begin to overlap, however with founder led organizations the spheres probably overlapped considerably from the organization’s inception. Over time, board member A, B, & C end up occupying the same spheres of influence and the people in those spheres are repeatedly solicited for donations, year after year. The donor base becomes stagnant and do the donations.

Now consider a board with term limits. Each board member (not the ED/CEO) year around must actively look for potential new members. With term limits, the board is required to actively recruit new members. What happens is every 3 to 5 years more and more spheres of influence (X, Y and Z) begin to develop and the organization’s donor base widens (see my very crude and technology challenged drawing below, taken from Mr. Loring’s flip chart).

I am not saying that former board members should be put to pasture. Good board members conduct exit interviews of outgoing members and ask questions such as, “What would you like to do now?” Your board must have a plan that keeps former board members engaged. Creating an honorary council (not board) is one idea, however do not make it in name only, include with that designation some duties!

If your bylaws do not include term limits, please implement them soon. Do not take my word for it however. Engage your board in some research and as always, please respond with your thoughts.

Is Your Organization Ready for the Next Five Years?

2010-03-25T14:16:00.000-07:00

In March of this year I had the privilege to attend the Community Foundation of Broward County’s Boards in Action Leadership Academy. The two-day workshop I attended was only part of an extensive 18-month program designed to assist area nonprofits in reaching their highest potential. Chuck Loring of Loring, Sternberg & Associates, an Indianapolis & Fort Lauderdale based nonprofit fund raising and management consulting firm, lead the informative and thought provoking program.

In a room full of board members and ED/CEOs representing 16 different organizations, Mr. Loring opened the first morning’s session with a statement and an example of how important it is for board members and staff to be connected and connected on the same page. In the aftermath of 9/11, local nonprofit organizations went into survival mode. Emphatically, Loring described the difference between organizations that survived the crisis and organizations that did not—simply, if the board and staff were connected and working towards the same goals via the vision and values of the organization, the organization survived.

Statistics taken from the Nonprofit Times report that fundraising is down for the first time in 20 years. Using this evidence, Loring emphasized why boards and staff must connect by describing the salient needs of nonprofits in the next five years—more money, more volunteers, more staff, more board members, and branding and marketing awareness. With the exponential increase of nonprofits in the past 20 years, each one must articulate what sets it apart from all the others. Furthermore, Bridgespan estimates that 75% of the current ED/CEOs will be gone in the next five years. Unquestionably, consideration and action on all of these needs are vital to the survival of an organization.

The following are questions your board should ask of itself: Does your board participate in fundraising? Do your board and staff have a recruitment and training program for volunteers? Do your board and staff keep a pulse on the new social media and recruit and employ members of the younger generation to keep up with such trends? Does your board recruit potential board members year around? Does your organization occupy a unique place in the community? Finally, does your organization incorporate leadership planning into its overall board governance?

The podcasts on the CoreStratagies website offer insight into many of these issues. Please peruse them and comment with your thoughts and questions.

Back to School

2010-02-23T20:09:00.000-08:00

Q: I would like to do a masters degree in nonprofit management online. I have over ten years of experience volunteering and working in this sector and have a great passion for it. But, I can’t seem to find any information on such a program and would appreciate any ideas you can provide.

A: A couple times a year I get a question about schools of nonprofit management. While a relatively new course of study – such programs have only been around approximately 20 years, which is a drop in the bucket compared to something like philosophy, which dates back to the time of ancient Greece – a wide variety of options are available. The best source is the list maintained on the Seton Hall University website, based on research originally done a number of years ago by Roseanne Mirabella and Naomi Wish and kept up to date. There are currently close to 300 schools listed that are searchable by level (non-degree, undergraduate, masters or doctoral), state, region or whether the program is available online (47 are!). To access the list go to http://academic.shu.edu/npo/list.php?

But finding a school requires more than going down a list. You will obviously have to do some due diligence to determine the one that will best meet your needs.

One of the first questions you should ask is whether the program is a standalone, where your degree would be in nonprofit management, or a concentration in a larger school. That will impact the number and content of the courses you take in nonprofit management specifically. If it is a concentration, you should check out what department the program is being offered through. Typically nonprofit management programs will be located in business, public administration or social work, but I taught in one program that was located in the education department. Each discipline has its own focus, advantages, disadvantages and politics. The Seton Hall website can walk you through some of these, but again you need to know what you are going back to school to learn.

Check out the core courses you will be required to take and the availability, type and variety of elective courses. You’ve been working in the field. Are there enough courses in your particular area of interest? Will those courses give you the range of knowledge you are looking for? What about when they are offered? Just because they are online doesn’t mean that you can necessarily take them on your schedule.

Look at the faculty. Review their curriculum vitae. Have they worked in nonprofits or sat on boards? Do they publish? Present at conferences? Does that matter to you?

If you are doing an online program, will you have to spend some time in residency? If so, how long and how often will you be expected to attend? Can you get the time off from your job? Can you afford to travel to the school to meet this requirement?

Will you have to do a thesis? Would you rather have an extra class or two instead? Can you do a thesis even if it’s not required if you feel that will give you critical experience?

What is the cost? Is there any financial aid available if you require it? Will you be required to take the Graduate Record Exam (GRE) or an equivalent?

This is not a decision to be taken lightly. I commend you for wanting to go back and get an advanced degree. Just be sure that the choice you make is the best one possible because you will be making a big investment in both time and money.

Providing Value

2010-02-22T18:27:00.000-08:00

Andrew Kakabadse, Professor of International Management Development in the School of Management at Cranfield University in the United Kingdom, recently conducted a study of over 1200 boards from around the world. Fully 75% of those boards reported not knowing how they contribute value to their organizations. While sad, I am not surprised by this finding. The culture of most boards precludes engagement. And, if there is no engagement how can we expect anyone to have even a sense of belonging, let alone of providing import to the organization?

For instance, when was the last time your board was engaged in a substantive discussion? I don’t mean that the directors were asked to vote on a recommendation or to discuss the merits of the two companies submitting bids to fix the roof. Rather, they were expected to ask “What if…,” to explore working in tandem with a group that has always been seen as the competition or to consider how to turn a risk into a unique opportunity to move the organization forward?

I routinely ask boards with which I’m going to work to share with me their typical agenda. Most follow a format that is strong on reports. How much value can board members bring if all they are doing is listening to reports? What’s worse: reports focus on the past. Nobody can change the past. If you want board members to feel they are bringing value to your organization, you must engage them – their excitement, commitment and unique talents – around issues that they can impact. This requires providing them with the information they need or request, turning them loose to grapple with the issues and supporting their conclusions. If you have grounded your board around your organizational vision and values you have nothing to fear and much to gain.

There’s an old adage that, “If two people in business think alike, one of them is unnecessary.” We need the diversity of thought that our boards bring to the table. Our decisions become better. Best, the process cuts both ways. People who have had the opportunity to offer input feel valued.

But, all of this is for naught if we don’t share with our boards the results of their efforts. Otherwise, for all they know, they wasted their time in merely a mental exercise. If we want our boards to feel valued, we have to demonstrate that their product – their intellectual capital and their efforts – made a difference. And, it doesn’t hurt to thank them for that, either!

There's a New Normal in Town

2010-02-11T21:03:00.000-08:00

I’ve been hearing it for awhile, now… we cannot hope to hang on until things return to “normal.” “Normal” has gone for good. There’s a new “normal” in town and it only promises to keep morphing. Regulations will become tighter. Technologies will continue to change the way we do business. Upcoming generations will want to mold projects and processes in their image. The community will demand increasing levels of participation, accountability and impact. Collaboration will emerge as something necessary, something real, something more than a “front” to satisfy funders. Creativity will rule. The sharing of knowledge will become the norm. And, so the list grows.

How can we deal with these shifting sands? People a lot smarter than I have failed to come up with a definitive answer. However, I do have some thoughts. We cannot look backwards with longing. We, like Lot’s wife, will be buried in that sand.
We must realize, as my friend and colleague Hildy Gottlieb says, that we are creating the future now, whether consciously or not, with everything we do or say. So, we need to define our desired future, claim responsibility for our actions, see the elements dropped in our laps as constructive and utilize them, moving quite deliberatively in the direction that will take us where we want to go.

We must have faith in the community – the combined intelligence and experience sets of diverse individuals, all with skin in the game – and embrace what it has to offer. This might mean flattening our organizations’ hierarchies, or at least encouraging people to build the networks they feel would be most effective without attention to reporting lines.

We need to stop viewing our organizations as turf that must be protected from trespassers and poachers at all cost. Thinking about the value easements on personal property offer to the owners of the property, as well as to the greater community, might help here. As a first step to breaking down the walls between “us” and “them” we could encourage that those in our organizations start talking to and working with individuals at all levels in other organizations, even other communities. And, we should start looking at how to leverage resources between organizations, as well.

We must encourage out-of-the-box thinking. In fact, we should be encouraging people to burn that damn box for once and for all! This might mean that we take a lesson from some Fortune 100 companies and give people time each week to work on projects unrelated to their jobs that are of personal interest to them. Incredible ideas have come out of such policies in the for-profit sector. Why aren’t we encouraging people to dream, then share what they are developing? My guess is that we’ll find things in these projects that will move organizations closer to not only their own visions, but to healthier, more vibrant communities.

It won’t be easy. Real change rarely is. However, there is a saying that “change is inevitable, only the struggle is optional.” Let’s embrace the new “normal” and together clean up Dodge.

It's Time to Judge on the Basis of Impact

2010-02-11T21:00:00.000-08:00

The end of the year is approaching and people are hastening to make their 2009 gifts. Some generous souls will respond to any organization that makes an ask. For most, however, the process involves either going through the stack of envelopes received from organizations to which they’ve given in the past, merely to decide how much to give this year, or logging on to a charity watchdog site, such as those run by Guidestar and BBB Wise Giving Alliance, to see which organizations serving a personal passion get high marks. But, are any of these means the best way to approach this important task?

A small but increasingly vocal number of people are suggesting we should be looking at impact when we make our giving decisions. Has the organization to which we’ve given loyally over the years really lived up to its promise to the community? I can hear the contingent that turns to watchdog groups saying, “But that’s why I check these groups out!” The problem with the watchdog groups is that the criteria upon which they’ve been rating organizations are criteria that are easy to measure. They are not necessarily criteria that speak to impact.

One of the key factors upon which high ratings have been given in the past is the maintenance of low administrative costs. However, nonprofits have rightly complained for years that it takes people, facilities and equipment to provide services and achieve impact. People, facilities and equipment cost. Other key factors that result in a strong ranking include the number of dollars that are spent to raise money and the period of time the organization could maintain itself without any further fund raising. While clearly related to good business practices, neither of these criteria speak to results. Frankly, even factors such as numbers of programs, numbers served or satisfaction levels speak more to busyness than they do to impact.

Ken Berger, the CEO of Charity Navigator – one of the foremost watchdog groups – bravely came out this month to say that Charity Navigator will be redesigning its rating system to focus on impact. He admits that it won’t be easy, but believes it is necessary and doable.

Until all the watchdog organizations do our work for us, I propose that we put aside emotion and analysis based on easy but less-than-meaningful numbers to do our own assessment of impact. Is, for instance, our favorite homeless shelter merely serving more people or is it putting the people it does serve into their own homes and providing them with the skills to pay the rent and take care of the maintenance?

We can also look at how well the organizations we identify play well with others. Does that homeless shelter insist on hiring its own case managers, building out and staffing its own kitchen, or collecting its own clothing to provide to clients when it could reach out to other organizations in the community who already have case managers, a kitchen capable of feeding those in the shelter or sufficient clothing to share?

Doing this sort of research will take time, but the rewards go beyond knowing that you answered the call to ensure the status quo. It will draw you closer to the organizations you ultimately select. It will intensify the feeling you get inside when you give. It will force organizations to make a difference or leave the marketplace. And, it will allow you to live in a healthier, more robust community.

Asking for Donations? Be Sure You are Properly Registered

2010-02-04T15:22:00.000-08:00

Q: Can you address what nonprofits must and should do about registering in their own and other states when they solicit donations? I am employed by a management support organization. Many of the nonprofits with which we work are not aware of the requirements and I would like to provide them with current information. I appreciate anything you can share with me on this matter.

A: You raise an issue that is getting a lot of attention today, especially from the states themselves and the IRS. The short answer is that organizations must be registered in the states in which they solicit funds. And, that might as well be every state if they have a “donate now” button on their website. While each state has different laws on the books – for instance, some allow for exemptions for such things as religious organizations, organizations receiving money from only a handful of individuals within the state or organizations receiving an insignificant amount of money from within the state – they are all looking for full compliance.

The registration requirements are not new. Organizations have long been obligated to register in those states in which they conduct a solicitation by any means – e.g., direct mail, email, raffle sales, telemarketing, personal visit and so on. This has been true whether or not the organizations have a physical presence in the state. Even the ubiquitous “donate now” buttons on websites can trigger registration requirements in states that argue that one of their residents could conceivably come upon one of these sites, see the button as a solicitation and be motivated to give.

Throughout the years, a number of organizations have received calls from states that proactively identified them as scofflaws, threatening fines and demanding immediate registration. In the grand scheme of things, it was not a large number. But, just because one of your organizations may have knowingly or unknowingly ignored these laws with impunity in the past, they do so now at their own peril.

Three situations have emerged to make this so. The first is the public’s growing unease over the scandals that have rocked both for-profit and nonprofit corporations, and the states’ corresponding desire to protect their citizens by, at the very least, keeping track of who is asking those citizens for money. Second, the poor economy has motivated states to look for every source of revenue they can find. Registration fees and fines for the failure to register contribute to states’ coffers. And third, the IRS did a major rewrite of the Form 990, which now requires nonprofits to report the states in which they must file a copy of their Form 990 and the states in which they are registered or have received an exemption from registering. These two questions allow the IRS to determine the states from which an organization has raised funds. Failing to answer is not an option. Answering falsely opens the leadership to charges of perjury. In either case, the leadership may be personally liable for civil and in some cases criminal penalties, which can bring fines up to $25,000 and potential jail time.

Ensuring one’s compliance to the filing requirements is not easy because each state has its own stipulations for registration. Some grant registration automatically if an organization files a copy of its IRS determination letter, along with a cover sheet that includes basic identifying information and any required filing fee. Thirty-six states, plus the District of Columbia, accept the Unified Registration Statement, version 3.20, which is available – with supplemental forms for 13 states – at www.multistatefiling.org. But, organizations still have to file this form separately in each state, along with the applicable filing fee. Still other states require completion of a unique registration form, plus any filing fee. The filing fees can range from $25 to $400. On top of this, registration is an annual requirement, with different filing deadlines in each state.

There are companies that will process all of an organization’s registration materials each year. They tend to run around $7500 in professional fees (exclusive of filing fees), with some a little less and some a little more. If an organization goes this route, it should be sure to ask what the fee covers and what level of accountability the company assumes if they miss a filing deadline or makes some other mistake.

Obviously, an organization can file its own registrations. It is my understanding that this takes an average of two weeks of dedicated attention, though not all at one time and each organization’s unique situation will impact the actual number of hours. Contact the states’ Attorney General or Secretary of State (the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Affairs in Florida and the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs and the Office of Tax and Revenue in the District of Columbia) for specific requirements and to learn of any exemptions and penalties that might apply in the organization’s case.

While complex, registration is a task that cannot be put off. Get going today. Good luck.

Are You Prepared for When Disaster Strikes?

2010-01-19T21:49:00.000-08:00

This past week news has centered on little other than the devastating impact of the earthquake in Haiti. The challenges of responding to this crisis are immense. More than one newscaster has claimed the task impossible, despite the outpouring of help from around the world, the hundreds of millions of dollars in donations and the fact that Haiti has over 10,000 NGOs of its own to mobilize – the highest number of NGOs per capita of anywhere in the world. True, this is an extraordinary situation. But, it should serve as a lesson to all organizations in our sector. We must be prepared for the unexpected, whatever form that might take. After all, experience teaches us it is not a question of “if” something untoward will occur, but “when.”

No area in the world is immune to natural disasters. Therefore, your organization is susceptible. Is your data protected and retrievable even if your computers are smashed, looted or swept out to sea? Do you have a staffing plan where people know who is to report, under what circumstances, and where to report if your physical space can’t be reached, is uninhabitable or otherwise compromised? Do you have a means of checking up on staff who don’t immediately report to be sure that they are okay? What about a plan for providing service when your normal operations are disrupted? How will you access critical supplies? How will you determine which programs have priority if you cannot, for some reason, provide them all? Do you have a process in place for communicating with your clients if basic telecommunications are disrupted? How will you triage their needs? Do you have agreements with other organizations to work together or even take over for you in times like these?

Then there are man-made disasters, which are even more likely to occur. Pick up a newspaper almost any day and there is a story about someone in the public eye who said something politically incorrect when out with “friends” or in front of a live microphone that was assumed to be off. It can happen to your executive administrator or a visible member of your board. What about a trusted staff member or volunteer who absconds with organizational funds? Or, a program that gets bad publicity? Perhaps someone associated with your organization is accused of sexual harassment. Or, your property is burglarized or significantly vandalized. The possibilities are endless. Are you prepared to handle them quickly and intelligently? Have you identified an organizational spokesperson who will serve as the (only) voice of the organization in these circumstances? Do you have a policy for whether you will be proactive or reactive in dealing with the press? A script by which you control the spin? What about procedures for staying in the public’s good graces?

While it is never possible to cover all contingencies, having risk and crisis management plans in place that deal with the most likely will serve you in good stead. Not only will you be able to quickly respond to the situations you’ve previously identified, you will have a plan from which to start – one you can adapt – when faced with the unexpected.

Few people like thinking about worst case scenarios – it’s why so many die without wills, despite the knowledge that we all will die. However, your organization made a commitment to the community when it opened its doors. You cannot afford to be ill prepared to meet that commitment. As such, you need plans that are updated as new situations reveal missing elements. Bring key stakeholders in today and start them brainstorming. Tomorrow may be too late.

Giving to help Haiti

2010-01-14T16:47:00.000-08:00

The devastation in Haiti is agonizing to see. Most of us want to contribute in some way to help. Please be sure that your donation goes to a legitimate charitable organization and gets to Haiti to help those who need it most. If you are unsure which organizations are worthy of your support, take a look at this article "How to Spot Dubious Haiti Charity Pleas" on Forbes.com.

2010-01-07T19:32:00.000-08:00

We, and many of our fellow consultants, are often asked to help people create new nonprofit organizations. One of our esteemed colleagues, Don Greisman, has written a splendid article on why in most cases this is NOT a good idea, and suggests alternatives. If you or someone you know is toying with this idea, reading this thoughtful article is a must.

Secret Ballot or a Show of Hands

2010-01-05T22:02:00.000-08:00

Q: We have an election coming up and a number of us would like to know the most common practice of nonprofit boards: To elect board members by public vote or secret ballot?

A: Given your question, it appears your vote is not proforma. Good. I give extra points to any organization that questions how to move forward and with whom. I trust it means that you have sufficient depth of leadership to require a serious vote and that you are looking for the most effective means of achieving that.

Both voting procedures are commonly used. I am unaware of one being used significantly more than the other. The approach a specific organization takes is often spelled out in that organization’s bylaws.

If your bylaws do not specify the technique to use, consider the advantages and disadvantages of each. The public vote is faster and everyone sees the will of the people. However, the results of a voice vote may be determined on the basis of the group that projects the loudest. And, if the first candidate gets a particularly hearty response, those intending to vote for the second candidate may feel the majority has spoken and opt not to vote rather than be associated with what they perceive will be the losing side. Even a show of hands can be inaccurate unless several people are counting and all arrive at the same number. However, a secret ballot has its own problems. It takes longer. And, if the nominations were contentious, there may be a question about the validity of the vote and/or the subsequent count. Of course, this can be mitigated if ballots are numbered and accounted for, and there are representatives from “both sides” counting the ballots.

What is far more important than the type of vote is that you have a thoughtfully-considered list of criteria for board service. That makes it easier for your governance or nominating committee to vet the nominees and assure the voting body of the capability of each person up for election to the board. As long as each candidate meets the defined criteria, the format you ultimately choose shouldn’t matter. Everyone can feel comfortable that any of the people on the ballot will represent the community well if elected.

IRS Issues 990 Guidelines to Its Agents

2009-12-29T19:18:00.000-08:00

It's time to start thinking about filing your organization's 990. As you undoubtedly know, the new form looks very different from that in years past. The IRS has been providing its agents with guidelines that will help them evaluate the completed forms they receive. We thought you might want a copy of those guidelines so that you can be sure you are meeting the agency's expectations.

Governance Project: Guide Sheet for Completing the Project Check Sheet

1. Enter the Agent’s name and group number.

2. Enter the name of the organization examined.

3. Enter the EIN of the organization examined.

4. Enter the tax period or periods examined.

5. Enter the Form being examined (Form 990, Form 990-EZ,or Form 990-N). If different Forms were filed, enter the Form filed for the primary year under
examination. If the organization was not required to file a Form 990, Form 990-EZ,or Form 990-N, select Not Applicable.

6. Enter the organization’s foundation code.

7. Select Yes or No depending on whether the organization has a written mission statement that reflects its current I.R.C. § 501(c)(3) purpose(s). If the organization does not have a written mission statement, answer No. Likewise, if the organization has a written mission statement but its current activities do not reflect that mission statement, answer No even if the organization is fulfilling other appropriate I.R.C. §501(c)(3) purposes.

8. For each item, select Yes – just officers, Yes – just directors, or Yes – both, as appropriate, based upon whether the organization’s bylaws address the listed
information with respect to those individuals. Select No if the bylaws do not address the listed information at all, or N/A – No Bylaws if the organization has no bylaws.

9. Select the appropriate box or boxes corresponding to those individuals or groups of individuals to whom the organization provides copies of its most recent articles and bylaws.

10. Enter the number of board members with voting rights as of the first date of the primary tax year under examination.

11. a. Select the appropriate response (Once per year, Twice per year, Quarterly, Once per month, Twice per month, or Other) depending on the number of times the board met during the primary year under examination.
b. Select the appropriate response (Once per year, Twice per year, Quarterly, Once per month, Twice per month, or Other) depending on the number of times the board met during the primary year under examination. The board includes members with voting rights as well as those without voting rights. For purposes of this question, the term full board does not require that all board members actually be present.

Example: If all board members were invited to attend a meeting and the board
actually met, then this would qualify as a meeting of the full board.

12. Select the appropriate response (Yes-met the requirements, Yes-exceeded the requirements, No-did not meet the requirements) depending on whether the number of meetings actually held by the board met or exceeded the meeting requirements as set forth in the bylaws.

For example, if the bylaws provided that the board would meet monthly (twelve times in a year) and the board only met ten times during the primary year under examination, then the response would be No. If the board does not have bylaws, the appropriate response is N/A – No bylaws.

13. Select Yes or No depending on whether compensation arrangements for all officers, directors, trustees, and key employees are approved in advance by an authorized body of the organization composed of individuals with no conflict of interest with respect to the compensation arrangement. If anyone with a conflict of interest with respect to a particular compensation arrangement participated in the approval of that particular compensation arrangement, the appropriate response is No. Select N/A – No Compensation Provided as appropriate. For purposes of this question, officers,directors, trustees, and key employees are the same as the definitions contained under I.R.C. § 4958.

14. a. Select Always, Sometimes, or Never depending on whether the organization’s authorized body relies upon comparability data in making compensation determinations. Select N/A – No Compensation Provided as appropriate.
b. If you responded Always or Sometimes to 14a, select the appropriate box or boxes corresponding to the comparability data considered by the organization in making its compensation determinations.
c. If the Other response is selected for 14b, please write in a brief description of the other comparability data referred to.

15. Select Yes or No depending on whether the organization contemporaneously documents the basis for its compensation determinations. For example, do the organization’s meeting minutes or other documents, created at the time compensation is approved, reflect the reasons underlying particular compensation determinations?Select N/A – No Compensation Provided as appropriate.

16. a. Select Yes or No depending on whether any of the organization’s voting board members have either a family or business relationship with any other voting or nonvoting board member, officer, director, trustee, or key employee. Family relationships include those of spouses, brothers or sisters, spouses of brothers or sisters, ancestors, children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, and spouses of children, grandchildren and great grandchildren. For purposes of this question, officers, directors, trustees, and key employees are the same as the definitions contained under I.R.C. § 4958.
b. If you responded Yes to question 16a, enter the number of such family or business relationships that exist.
c. If you responded Yes to question 16a, enter the number of voting members with family relationships, the number of voting members with business relationships, and the number of voting members with both types of relationships with any other voting or non-voting board member, officer, director, trustee, or key employee. The number of family, business, or both relationships should equal the number of relationships indicated in question 16b.

Example: An organization has a total of ten board members. Husband and Wife both serve on the board. Wife and another board member are the sole shareholders in a for-profit corporation. In addition, Wife and Husband are partners in a for-profit organization. For 16a, the answer would be yes. For 16b, the total number relationships would be two. For 16c, the answer would be one business relationship (the relationship between Wife and the other board member) and one for both (since Husband and Wife have both a family relationship and business relationship.

17. Select Yes or No depending on whether effective control of the organization rests with a single or select few individuals. For example, is there a single individual or small group of individuals to whom the board typically defers?

18. a. Enter Yes or No depending on whether the organization has a written conflict of interest policy.
b. If you responded Yes to question 18a, select Yes or No depending on whether the conflict of interest policy addresses recusals. If you responded No to 18a, select Not Applicable.
c. If you respond Yes to 18a, select Yes or No depending on whether the conflict of interest policy requires annual written disclosures of conflicts of interest. If you responded No to 18a, select Not Applicable.
d. Select Never adhered to, Sometimes adhered to, Always adhered to, or Not
Applicable depending on whether the organization’s conflict of interest policy was adhered to. For example, did those with a conflict of interest on a particular matter recuse themselves from the corresponding decision making process? If you responded No to 18a, select Not Applicable. If no actual or potential conflicts of interest were disclosed during the primary year under examination, select Not Applicable.

19. Select Yes or No depending on whether the organization has systems or procedures in place intended to ensure that assets are used properly and consistently with the organization’s mission.

20. a. Select Never, Once per year, Twice per year, Quarterly, Once per month, Twice per month, or Other depending on how often the organization provided board members with written reports of the organization’s financial activities. The board includes members with voting rights as well as those without voting rights.
b. Select Never, Once per year, Twice per year, Quarterly, Once per month, Twice per month, or Other depending on how often the board discussed/considered reports of the organization’s financial activities. For example, look at whether the organization maintained complete, current, and accurate financial records, and whether the board had and exercised the opportunity to discuss/consider those reports and records. The board includes members with voting rights as well as those without voting rights.

21. Select Yes or No based on whether, prior to filing, the organization’s Form 990 was reviewed by either the full board or a designated committee. Please note that the question addresses a review of the Form 990 prior to filing, not merely receipt of the Form 990 prior to filing. If the organization was not required to file a Form 990,Form 990-EZ, or Form 990-N then select Not Applicable.

22. a. Select Yes or No depending on whether an independent accountant’s report was prepared during the primary year under examination.
b. If you responded Yes to 22a, select Yes or No depending on whether the
accountant’s report was discussed/considered by either the full board or a designated committee. If you responded No to 22a, select Not Applicable.

23. a. Select Yes or No depending on whether a management letter was prepared by an independent accountant during the primary year under examination.
b. If you responded Yes to 23a, select Yes or No depending on whether the
management letter was reviewed by either the full board or a designated committee. If you responded No to 23a, select Not Applicable.
c. If you responded Yes to 23a, select the appropriate response (Yes - adopted some, Yes – adopted all, or No – adopted none) based on whether the organization adopted any of the recommendations contained in the management letter. If you responded No to 23a, select Not Applicable.

24. a. Select Yes or No depending on whether the organization has a written policy for document retention and destruction.
b. If you responded Yes to 24a, select the appropriate response (Yes – all of the
time, Yes – some of the time, or No – none of the time) depending on whether the organization adhered to its written document retention and destruction policies during the primary year under examination. If you responded No to 24a, select Not Applicable.

25. Select the appropriate response (Yes – all of the time, Yes – some of the time, or No – none of the time) depending on how often the board of the organization contemporaneously documents its meetings and retains this documentation.

26. Select the appropriate response depending on whether your examination was hindered by a lack of necessary documentation. Consider whether documents that should have been available were never produced, prematurely destroyed, or otherwise unaccounted for.

27. Select the examination disposal code for the primary return from the drop down menu.

28. Select the principal issue codes for the primary return from the drop down menus.

How Can I Get My Board to Evaluate Me?

2009-12-07T22:09:00.000-08:00

Q: Could you refer me to an appropriate form or format for executive director evaluation? I am the executive director. While the board says it appreciates the work I have accomplished, I can’t seem to get anyone to formalize this feedback or talk about the raise I was promised as inducement for my accepting the position originally. I submitted a detailed progress report on my first anniversary, enumerating all that I had achieved. This included cutting costs equal to my annual salary, creating procedures where none existed previously and building our brand. I find myself, seven months later, still waiting for my first evaluation. The board recently asked me to find an evaluation form that it can use to facilitate the process. I’m hoping that if I give the directors one, they will finally sit down with me. In doing my research I came across your article, “Evaluating the Top Administrator: A New Approach,” and I thought you might be able to point me in the right direction. Thank you.

A: I can feel your frustration. It’s hard putting your heart and soul into a job, not knowing whether your bosses think you are on the right track, let alone whether or when you’ll get that promised raise. All of us deserve an evaluation. It’s the opportunity to get some pats on the back and learn where we need to grow.

However, I’m not surprised that your board keeps putting off your evaluation. As you read in the article to which you refer above, most people are very uncomfortable judging others. And, in today’s economy, where uncertainty reigns, you can understand why the directors might be less than anxious to provide any evaluation, let alone one they tied to a raise.

Let me start by saying congratulations for all that you have accomplished in a relatively short time. It is impressive and I’m sure the directors that verbally express appreciation are sincere. I must ask, though, whether these goals were the board’s priorities or yours. The fact that the board as a whole has not rushed to praise you leads me to suspect that these were your priorities and the board doesn’t know how to say it wishes you had done other things instead. I further suspect that the directors are hoping you will present them with an evaluation form that lists a plethora of typical tasks that they can then say you ignored as you forged ahead following the beat of your own drummer.

I hope I am wrong. The only way to avoid this in the future is to sit down together with your board and create a list of specific goals that are tied directly to the organization’s vision and for which you will be responsible. Each goal should be measurable and have a deadline for achievement. Each should specify whether the accomplishment is expected or whether it would be seen as exceeding expectations. Any promises of a raise should be in writing and tied to these goals. (Note – in these times do not be surprised or upset if the board doesn’t wish to commit to any sort of raise or bonus. Most likely, it is just being prudent with the organization’s funds.) I would also suggest that you put dates on the calendar right now for a quarterly or six-month review. The dates are more likely to be honored if they are already scheduled. If you wait until the evaluations are due it is too easy to let day to day crises prevent you from making the necessary time.

Of course none of this addresses the specific concerns you raised. I would go to your board chair and ask for a date within the next two weeks that you can put on your calendar for an evaluation. I would remind him or her that evaluations are a “best practice.” They are more critical today than ever before because they will ensure that you and the board are of a single mind moving forward in these chaotic times. You are holding your staff accountable for meeting the needs of the community and you expect to be held accountable as well. You are always looking to grow and you know that you can benefit from the board’s observations. You count on the board’s ability to share the community’s perceptions of you and the organization, and an evaluation provides the perfect opportunity to get these perceptions out on the table…. I could go on, but I’m sure you get the idea. The one thing I would not mention is that you are looking forward to discussing money. Get the evaluation first. You can always speak about money later.

When you approach the board chair I would acknowledge that you were asked to find an evaluation form that the board can use. I would say, however, that the more you researched the more you heard that off-the-shelf evaluation tools prove inadequate because no two executive director/CEO jobs are the same and check boxes or Likert scales fail to adequately reflect either the job that is being done or that needs to be done in the future. You can refer him or her to the article you found and referenced in your question. Suggest that you are willing to sit down with a small group of directors to help them determine the skills and characteristics that they see as important for the executive director of your organization to have at this time in history and at this point in the organization’s march toward vision accomplishment. You might also say that you have given the subject some thought and are prepared to help the board committee come up with something mutually satisfactory in a single meeting. (Remember, you don’t want this process to drag on any longer.) Of course, that means you must do your homework and be prepared to come with your ideas fully formed!

Good luck.

Saying Goodbye to Tucson

2009-10-30T23:17:00.000-07:00

We completed our fifth day of the Community Driven Institute immersion class. We have worked through the three phases of community impact planning, starting with the vision, followed by the conditions that need to be present to achieve the vision, the values that will guide actions, and finally how to create organizational wellness for “thrivability.” We have discussed in depth how we can do a better job as consultants to facilitate our clients’ reaching their greatest potential.

As a reward for all our hard work, over lunch on this final day of class we celebrated all we have learned from our extraordinary teachers Hildy and Dimitri and then we celebrated what we learned from and about each other. We ended our day, and this week that has enriched our lives so very much, at the Sonora Desert together watching the sun set behind the mountains. As we drove away from the beautiful red/orange sky, we knew this was not an end but the beginning of our work “off campus,” with our own clients, our partners in making the world a better place.

Thursday’s Musings from Tucson

2009-10-29T23:53:00.000-07:00

It was another stimulating day at the Community Driven Institute. One lesson that stuck in my head – maybe because I was a communication major in college – is that our choice of language can keep us from achieving our vision. “Barriers,” “blocks,” “obstacles,” “threats,” “weaknesses,” “challenges” and “if only” are just of few of the terms that we commonly use, even intentionally invoke, when planning for our futures. The rationale is that by identifying such factors we will know how best to proceed. However, these terms are insidious in that they strip us of power. They plant the seed that our vision is unrealistic if not impossible to achieve.

In truth, what we typically identify as items standing in the way of our success are merely conditions that exist. Conditions we can expect to come across on our journey toward creating an amazing community. Conditions devoid of connotation – negative or positive. Conditions we are fully capable of successfully confronting head-on or avoiding altogether.

When we slip and start talking about impediments to our moving forward we need to stop ourselves and ask, “So, we would want to see what?” This will keep us from becoming mired in the mud and refocus us on the firm path before us.

More news from Tucson

2009-10-28T21:20:00.000-07:00

As Terrie wrote in her blog yesterday, we are taking part in an incredible five-day immersion class taught by the brilliant Hildy Gottlieb and Dimitri Petropolis of the Community Driven Institute. Today was day three. Each day is building so naturally upon the one before, it is easy to lose track of the huge amount of information we are packing into our little brains. Until, that is, we take a few minutes to reflect at the end of the day about what has stood out for us. Then, we begin to understand the depth of the concepts we are processing and the changes we are seeing in ourselves.

Today, we took the vision and values exercises we did yesterday and applied them. We learned how to better help organizations use these vision/value discussions to anchor them as they move toward creating their best potential, their dream community. Among the many things I learned today is the "means" to better guide these discussions to the highest "ends," and in so doing to always Trust the Process, and Trust the [people in the] Room.

It continues to astound all of us how Hildy has distilled a lifetime of work into this amazing Community Driven Institute. This immersion course is taking us as consultants to the next level so we can better do our part to create the healthy, compassionate, vibrant world we seek. I for one am thrilled to be on the journey and can't wait to see what I will be packing into my head tomorrow. Stay tuned!

Random Thoughts from Tucson – Tuesday

2009-10-27T23:11:00.000-07:00

Gail Meltzer and I are In Tucson this week, taking part in the Community Driven Institute. The brainchild of Hildy Gottlieb and Dimitri Petropolis, the Institute evolved out of Hildy’s book, The Pollyanna Principles, and focuses on governing for what matters, instilling a “culture of can” and engaging the community in creating amazing futures where organizations actually achieve their visions.

The class is small – there are only five participants – so we are able to explore issues in depth. It is also incredibly intense. We are meeting from 8:30am to 5:15pm everyday for a full week. We walk out of the Institute each evening with our brains overflowing with new ideas for helping our clients dramatically move their organizations forward. While you will be hearing more from us about the concepts we are exploring as time goes by, Gail and I want to share some of our excitement with you now. Therefore, we’ll be blogging the rest of the week.

The focus today was on vision and values. If you have ever worked with me, you know that I am a firm believer in the power of vision and values and that they should guide every decision you make. However, in the future, be assured that these two elements will take an even more hallowed position in the work that we do. There is a saying that when you reach for the stars you may not quite get one but you won't come up with a handful of mud either. By embracing vision and values you can change the community in ways you never thought possible. In today’s environment, where violence, pollution, hunger, poverty, drugs, illness and other issues cloud our future, it is incumbent upon us to fulfill our promises to the community. And, it is doable merely by keeping our eyes on what is important and working backwards from there!

DO’S AND DON’TS OF CHOOSING A GRANT WRITER

2009-10-07T19:54:00.000-07:00

Q: We are looking for a grant writer. A few people on the board suggested different individuals they knew from other organizations, but they seem expensive and only one said she’d be willing to work on a contingency basis. While most of us wanted to go with her, someone on the board said we can’t. The rest of us don’t really understand why not. And, if that’s true, we definitely don’t have the money to make a mistake. How do we know who to choose? We agreed to write you and go along with what you said.

A: While I can’t promise to help you make the “right” choice, I can help ensure that you make a better choice.

Let’s start with the easy part of your question – the contingency fee. Whoever on your board said you should steer clear of this person was offering good advice. On the surface, such a “guarantee” of success seems like the most prudent approach to take. The grant writer appears confident enough of her ability to obtain the grant on your behalf that she is willing to risk her time and energy on the chance of a return. That seems to imply that this person is more competent than the others. On top of that, you don’t have to put any money out until you have money in your pocket. However, there are several reasons why the seemingly smart move is the wrong move in this case. Let me share just two here.

First, every professional organization to which a fund raiser in general and a grant writer in specific might belong forbids contingency fees in their codes of ethics. While we could debate the validity of the reasons for this, that is not at the heart of your question. I think it is enough to say that if this person is going against what is deemed standard ethical behavior in the field, either she is not as familiar with the field as she thinks, she’s new and feels that this is a good way to break in, or she is knowingly ignoring the standard and then you have to question what other ethical standards she might ignore while representing your organization.

Second, most grant guidelines clearly state that any costs associated with writing the grant proposal cannot come out of the grant. This means that she is going to have to hide her payment in the proposal. It also means that you will have to play with the books in order to maintain the charade when, if you get the grant, you report back to the funder – as required – on the use of the funds. I trust you don’t want to take that road. If you do and your antics are discovered, you may not only have to pay back the money, but you stand a chance of never getting another grant.

So, if you’re going to bite the bullet and pay for your grant writing services upfront, how do you make the best choice? You took a good first step by asking board members who they have successfully worked with in the past. A strong track record is an excellent indicator. Ask for the percentage of grants each person has gotten funded. You might also want to find out the average size of each grant. Someone might have a great success rate, but only have experience, for instance, with grants under $35,000 when you are looking to go after a several million dollar grant.

I would ask each of these individuals about the mission areas in which they specialize. Most grant writers tend to focus on one or two. Someone who already works in your mission area will know who the funders are, what they are looking for and how they like their proposals written. In addition, they will know where to find many of the relevant demographics and other statistics to be included.

I would see what each requires of your organization. Grant writing is a partnership. The grant writer cannot do the job on his/her own. An experienced grant writer will be able to tell you exactly what the organization’s role in the process will be and what materials the organization will have to produce.

Assess the chemistry. Again, this is a partnership. You will be working closely together and often on short deadlines that can test the best relationships. You need to feel comfortable with this person.

Ask to see writing samples. While the person should not be giving you another organization’s grant proposal without having previously obtained permission, or at least redacting all identifying information, you can look at almost any writing sample to determine if the person writes coherently and is attentive to spelling, grammar and basic layout.

Finally, there is now national certification for professional grant writers. The lack of such certification does not mean that someone is a bad grant writer. This certification has only been available for a relatively short while, so few have had the opportunity to work through the process. And, some grant writers who have been working successfully for a long time and have a loyal clientele may never feel the need to go through the process. Besides, the possession of certification does not guarantee someone is a star. However, the rigorous process does rightly grant you some assurance that the person has had several years of experience in the field and has demonstrated a high level of knowledge about it. You can find the names of those who have obtained certification by going to http://grantcredential.org/gpc-certification/credentialed-grant-professionals.aspx.

Just remember, you can find the best grant writer in the world but you should still not expect grants to be the primary source of your funding. You need a diversified funding stream – especially today when grants funding is down significantly.

Your Annual Report Should Rock!

2009-09-12T08:47:00.000-07:00

If you are not yet creating an annual report that shares with donors and other supporters what you have achieved in the past year through their generosity and commitment to your important work....WHY NOT? If you are already producing an annual report but are not using it to help raise awareness and funds, WHY NOT? Your annual report gives you a unique opportunity to do so much more than disclose your financials for the year. It can also be a compelling marketing piece to be used all year long. Here are 10 things to think about to take your annual report to the next level.

1. Select a theme for the report, something that runs through your organization's past 12 months. Have you had unprecedented growth in challenging times? Have your exhibits drawn huge crowds? Have you begun to attract a whole new demographic/age group/type of student? You may even want to have the whole report written from the point of view of one of your clients, students, visitors.

2. Tell stories that illustrate how you have changed someone's life or made a dramatic difference in your community. Focus on people. Even if your organization is an animal or environmental protection group, talk about how people are affected by what you do.

3. Use dramatic photos. Make them big, perhaps even an entire page. Avoid small, group photos that are ordinary and boring. If you have some in your file that are appropriate, all the better, but if you have to take new ones, don't pinch pennies in this regard. Have them professionally done. You may also want to think about what "cut lines" you want to have BEFORE you decide what photos to use. Then you can take the photo you need.

4. Write for the reader. Use a conversational tone. Picture your typical reader as you are writing. Avoid jargon, long sentences and paragraphs, boring statistics. This isn't about YOU, this is about your donors and supporters. Think about what they want to hear, not just about what you want to say.

5. Use simplified financials, a pie chart, a brief financial statement. While this is vital to the report, it is only a part of your story and should not dominate the piece.

6. List your donors and meticulously check for accuracy and typos. Celebrate them and acknolwedge their critical role in what you were able to accomplish in the last year.

7. Have the report professionally designed and printed. Don't prepare it in-house and run it off on your copy machine. Because you are going to use it all year long (see number 8), spend the money to make it look crisp, clean and graphically beautiful.

8. Print enough copies to be able to do the following:

mail to all your donors, supporters, key stakeholders
provide copies to your vendors and board members to put in their waiting rooms as appropriate
include in your media kit
send to new donors
send/give to prospects and those who visit your facilities
provide at your events
send to your collaborative partners

9. Have it translated into another language if that is appropriate for your organization. You may not need to print hard copies in a second or even a third language; it may be sufficient to have them available for download from your website. And of course you will have the English version available on the website also.

10. Begin now and continue all year long to make notes about what to consider including in next year's annual report to make it even better.

Make the Founder a Permanent Board Member at Your Peril

2009-09-01T22:42:00.000-07:00

Q: Our current executive director is the founder of our organization. While she has accomplished much over the years, the board feels it is time to find someone with a different skill set to move the organization to the next level. We expect this will be a difficult transition. The board chair suggested we make the founder a permanent board member in recognition of her vision and commitment. While I think the chair envisioned this as an honorary or advisory position, some of us know the founder well and suspect that she will expect that not only she but her family members serve as voting members on the board for generations to come. Our guts tell us this wouldn’t be wise. What are our options and how do you suggest approaching this?

A: Listen to your gut! While I appreciate what you perceive to be the founder’s desire to remain intimately connected, the organization belongs to the community, not to her. And, your responsibility as board members is to the community, not to her. Allowing her and her family to serve as permanent voting members of the board would not be wise on several levels.

As long as the founder remains on the board, the rest of the board will tend to defer to her. This will make the position of the new executive director untenable, and the entire reason you went with this change in the first place will become moot because she will remain the de facto executive director.

A clean cut would be better. To make such a cut easier, before the founder is asked to step down I would make sure that the board takes the time to review with her the mission, vision and organizational values. If she feels confident that everyone understands her vision and is committed to taking it, and the values on which the organization was founded, forward, she may be more amenable to letting her “baby” operate independent of her, knowing it won’t stray too far from “home.”

There may be arguments for allowing her family members to serve on the board, but having multiple members serve at one time is wrought with potential problems. It’s not that there aren’t some definite pros, as I enumerated in a 2000 column entitled, “Should Husbands and Wives Serve Together,” but the cons are powerful. Among them: her presence will always loom large, dictating the direction of the organization. In addition, you will be limiting your reach into the community. Families tend to share many of the same contacts. Today, when board size is shrinking, it becomes particularly important to insist on greater diversity to increase the probability of widening your organization’s circles of influence as much as possible. Of course, then there are the flip sides of the same coin where group dynamics can become dysfunctional if the family either votes as a block or is constantly fighting. In the first instance the family forgoes the critical thinking so essential to the best decision-making. In the second, others may disengage to avoid being thrust in the middle of a public argument. Of course, the founder’s desire to have family members serve in perpetuity amplifies the potential problems. What happens down the road when a grandchild or great-grandchild lacks an affinity for the organization, yet is expected to serve?

One way you might handle this challenge is to be totally honest. Play on the woman’s love for the organization and her desire to see it flourish over the long term. Suggest that you would like to add “emeritus” to her title and invite her to serve as the face of the organization as well as an honorary board member throughout her lifetime. You may further recognize her by assuring her that her name and emeritus title will remain on the organization’s collaterals in perpetuity by codifying such instructions in organizational policy documents. However, I’d think long and hard about having her come to board meetings even without a vote. If she has a voice, she may still hold sway – at least until all board members who served with her when she was executive director are gone. Understand that she may not find these terms acceptable and you will have to make some very difficult decisions.

Of course, I’d start with going back to your bylaws and articles of incorporation. There are founders that insist on some sort of perpetuity clause when drafting these documents (something with which I am very uncomfortable). If she did, unless you change the bylaws and/or articles and re-file them with the Internal Revenue Service, you are pretty much stuck by the language contained in those documents.

10 Fundamental Pillars for Organizational Success

2009-08-27T12:44:00.000-07:00

Very kindly, I have been invited to contribute to this site by the management of CoreStrategies for Nonprofits where I have agreed to be a part-time Senior Consultant. After 46 years of successful professional experience, 29 in the For-Profit (FP) world and 17 years in the Not-for-Profit (NFP) world, I retired in June 2009. In the last 26 years, I was at the Senior Level or the President & CEO of seven organizations; In those 26 years, we successfully turned around 20 (fifteen FP and five NFP) organizations, from “ready to close” to complete financial and programmatic stability.

There are many fundamental pillars on which the management, quality, and growth of an organization, regardless of the size and sector [NFP vs. FP] in which it operates that are essential for the organization’s success. In these challenging times, I urge that you consider changing or dismantling these key aspects of your organization only after careful consideration and forethought.

For-Profit and Not-for-Profit -- For me there never was a distinction between the NFP and FP worlds. In one, I operated a “Business for Shareholders”; in the other, I operated a “Business with a Heart” but I operated under the fundamental principle that I was running a business.

Fundamental Pillars - The keys that permitted us to succeed in each organization, regardless of the industry or country are simple. Each key has been carefully developed and tested over time.

1. Three to Five-Year Business Plan: Vision and Implementation – Ensure that a three to five-year plan is always in place, casting the vision and intentions out in front of us to guide our day-to-day work.

2. Philosophy and Methodology – Ensure the creation of a common organizational culture marked by:
• Commitment to the children and families that you serve and the staff that
serves them;
• Vision of the future that you are creating, grounded in reality;
• Planning that creates a map for the realization of your vision;
• Team Work that is guided by partnership and accountability, and
• An Empowering Environment that recognizes the power of an environment to shape outcomes and empower people to succeed.

3. Finance and Accounting – Create a Finance and Accounting Department that will ensure that all aspects of the organization’s finances will comply with all applicable procedures and legal requirements, including: a balanced budget; 100% accuracy; and financial reports that are produced accurately and on time, and will be distributed to everyone who has accountability and interest for the financial results.

4. Human Resources – Create a Human Resources Department that supports the hiring of excellent people, ensures that the organization provides an environment in which motivated people can thrive, and vigilantly monitors your compliance with all HR-related legal, administrative and procedural requirements.

5. Programmatic Components: Fully Funded and at Capacity -- Ensure that all your programs are: Fully funded; At capacity or nearly so; Are excellent in both concept and delivery; Always seeking to take that excellence to new levels; Provided the resources – in terms of facilities, technology, staffing, etc. – that they need to succeed; and the most important part, Monitored for program results, and those results shared with funders and with the community, as appropriate, both to comply with grant and contract reporting requirements and to inspire continued funding of programs that make a difference.

6. Fund Development -- Create a Fund Development Department that prepares an Annual Fund Raising Plan; Make prospect identification, qualification and cultivation a regular part of the work; Generate partnership and broad-based participation (by staff members, Board of Directors, volunteers, etc.) in fund-development efforts; Establish and meet interim (pledge and revenue) targets; Be accountable by insuring that results are the Driver; and Thank Generosity -- Acknowledge donors and involve them with your organization, to foster long-term participation and support.

7. Information Technology – Ensure that the hardware and software required to operate the organization is in place; Ensure that it is maintained and upgraded as needed.

8. Internal Audit and Compliance – Engage this “Internal Conscience” that is accountable for ensuring that your organization develops and maintains internal controls to (a) foster accountability, (b) maximize effectiveness of operations, and (c) ensure that the organization complies with all applicable laws and ethical standards

9. Everyone Must Comply -- Ensure that the Board of Directors, the President and CEO, the Executive Management Team, and the Staff comply with all legal, administrative and ethical requirements for the integrity of the organization.

10. Facilities -- Take steps to ensure that all properties owned by the organization are used strategically, or to sell those properties and use the realized gain to further your mission.

Why is Cumulative Giving So Neglected?

2009-08-05T07:44:00.000-07:00

I've been contributing annually to not one, not two, but at least a half dozen environmental groups for over 35 years. Granted, my gifts have not been huge -- mostly in the $25-50 range -- but they have been consistent. I don't believe I have ever missed a year in all this time. I'm sorry to report that NONE of these organizations has acknowledged my cumulative giving over so many years, or contacted me outside of direct mail. What a shame.

It seems I am invisible to them, just another of the tens of thousands of donors who cycle through their organizations, usually introduced through a direct mail appeal. The difference about me is that I have never stopped giving, while I'm sure many tens of thousands of others have moved on to other charities. After all these years, they know absolutely nothing about me. Here's just a small sampling of what they don't know or what they have ignored:
1. I've moved dozens of times over these years, and every time I made sure to give them my change of address.
2. I'm incredibly loyal. Even after all these years of being treated like someone they've never heard of every time I give, I still keep giving.
3. I'm older now! I'm a member of the cohort of excellent planned giving prospects. I'm low hanging fruit!
4. I live in a major metropolitan area where I'm sure many other donors to these organizations live. They could get us together and bring us much closer to the organization. They are probably ignoring all those donors too.
5. I've been giving unrestricted gifts all these years. Maybe I could be persuaded to support specific projects at a higher level if I were made aware of those opportunities.

I'm re-evaluating my giving to these groups this year for the first time. Frankly, if I wanted to be ignored and under-valued for 35 years I could have stayed married to my first husband!

I deserve better, and this is the year I make my move. I've been giving to a few other groups that show appreciation, keep me informed and make me feel like my gifts matter. I'm going to reward them for knowing how to treat a gal right.

Being Publicly-Funded, How Much Must We Disclose?

2009-08-04T21:39:00.000-07:00

Q: I was re-reading something you wrote previously on confidentiality versus transparency in the boardroom. You peaked my curiosity. When an organization is operating with "public funds," what degree of "disclosure" is REALLY is required?

A: Can I consider your word “REALLY” to be lower case as I craft my response? In all seriousness, this is a tough question because there are no black and white answers.

The Panel on the Nonprofit Sector, convened by Independent Sector, stated in its final report to Congress in June 2005, “Comprehensive and accurate information about the charitable sector must be available to the public.” They went on to clarify this:

To encourage participation and confidence in the nonprofit sector, the public must have access to accurate, clear, timely and adequate information about the programs, activities, and finances of all charitable organizations. Government regulation should promote such transparency while providing sufficient flexibility to accommodate the wide range of resources and capabilities of nonprofit organizations, particularly of small organizations. (Report to Congress and the Nonprofit Sector on Governance, Transparency and Accountability, p. 21)

Unfortunately, this isn’t very instructive. It doesn’t even give us an idea of what constitutes “small organizations.”

The Internal Revenue Service is a bit more clear. Since 1999, public charities have had to make immediately available to whomever asked copies of their three most recent Form 990's, with all schedules and attachments, along with their exemption application. The only thing that can be redacted is the names and addresses of donors.

With the latest version 990’s, more information than ever before must be shared. This includes new reporting of the organization’s level of public support, any endowment and/or special funds, including donor advised funds, and non-cash contributions. It also requires that a summary of the organization’s mission and activities, as well as its governance structure, policies and practices be shared – including its disclosure practices. Transactions with interested persons, such as board members, must be revealed, as must relationships with professional fund raisers. Even its accounting methods must be spelled out and copies of audited financials or their equivalents provided. (For more information, go to http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/moving_from_old_to_new.pdf.)

While many organizations rely on GuideStar’s posting of their 990’s to satisfy the disclosure requirements, you might want to consider additional methodologies to communicate to the public how you operate, how you are using its money and the impact you are having in the community as a result. I suggest you work with your PR specialist and your accountant to help you in the presentation of this information. After all, you want people to actually read and understand what you are providing them.

All this having been said, my guess is that you are less concerned about the regulartory issues above and more concerned about how much you should disclose about those issues that come before the board, such as personnel problems, potential lawsuits or pending mergers. I am unaware of any “official” guidelines on this. What I would say, is that your board should have policies in place that spell out how to proceed if – or more likely, “when” – the organization is faced wtih such situations. The policies should indicate if you will disclose information proactively or reactively, the types of trigger points that would cause you to disclose, the manner in which you prefer to disclose – e.g., press conference, news release, email blast – and who shall serve as the spokesperson(s). Here again, working with a PR person, especially one who understands crisis management, is critical. He or she can help you design messages and dissemination strategies that keep the organization in the best light.

In today’s environment, where transparency and trust are paramount and people are re-evaluating the organizations they choose to support, the more information you can provide, even if it is not required, the better.

Thinking like your Donor

2009-07-19T08:03:00.000-07:00

I'm closing in on a big birthday. While I look forward to celebrating this milestone, the last thing I want is gifts (more stuff!), so I have been alerting people who know me who might be tempted to give me something to make a donation instead. Because I am a consultant who has been working with nonprofit organizations for decades, there are many worthy nonprofits that I could suggest to them. My challenge was to choose the handful I wanted to offer to friends and family so as not to overwhelm them with options. Let me tell you what it came down to:

1. Which mission(s) I was the most passionate about
2. Which had websites I wouldn't be embarrassed to refer them to

Frankly, as I began visiting the websites of my "favorite charities," I was really dismayed at what I saw. Here are the reasons I rejected suggesting some of the websites to my friends and family:

1. Many were visually unappealing and some were downright annoying, both from a graphic standpoint and the copy itself.
2. In many cases, I had to search around to find a purpose or mission statement that clearly indicated what the organization was all about.
3. Figuring out how to make a donation was too time-consuming, and, in some cases, you couldn't even make a donation online!
4. There was no clear information about how the organization would notify someone that a gift had been made in their honor. I knew this would be important to the prospective donors I would send to the website.
5. Too much information......it required too much effort to slog through the narratives to see how lives were being changed through the gifts of donors. I wanted my friends and family to be as inspired by the work as I am.
6. Overall, the websites that didn't make the cut were all about the organization and not about the donor or the visitor.

I think you get the picture. You may want to take a look at your website through the eyes of a donor like me who would like nothing better than to refer potential givers to your organization through your site. Would your donors be proud to offer this option to a friend? Would you?

I Want to Raffle My House for Charity

2009-07-01T16:01:00.000-07:00

Q: I have prime property that is facing foreclosure and I need to sell it – fast. I just heard of a nonprofit organization that recently held a $50 house raffle for a couple facing the loss of their home. The raffle was successful. The couple paid off their loans, the organization received a percentage of the money to benefit its charitable work and someone won a million-dollar home for $50.

I thought it was a great idea and would like to do the same thing, I was hoping you might be able to tell me what you know about doing this sort of thing. Is it legal? Can I do it myself without a nonprofit organization? I assume I cannot profit from it, but that’s okay. I would just like to pay off the loan on my home – and maybe cover the cost of improvements – before foreclosure. Any information, advice, web-sites, or companies that offer this type of raffle service legally, would be greatly appreciated.

A: As the real estate market has failed to bounce back as quickly as most would like, many are turning to creative ways of disposing of their property. Like you, I have read about successful raffles. Such publicity has generated a fair number of calls and emails from both individuals and nonprofits exploring this option. While I would begin by suggesting you consult an attorney with expertise in this area, I will share some initial thoughts.

Raffles are a form of gambling and gambling is highly regulated throughout the nation. To my knowledge, there are no states in which an individual can legally engage in running such a game of chance. The reason you have seen nonprofits linked to these home raffles is that in many states they are allowed to run “small” games of chance, usually including raffles, to raise funds to support their mission.

If I were advising the nonprofit, I would advise it NOT to participate in such an enterprise. Most importantly, if anything goes wrong – and there is often “fine print” in the state statutes even where such gaming is legal – the nonprofit could lose its tax-exempt status. However, even if that were not the case, I question whether the organization can make enough money to make the time and effort involved worth it.

Let’s look at some of the practical issues. Together, you and the nonprofit have to sell a LOT of tickets – especially at $50 – to bring in enough money just to cover the mortgage, let alone the real costs such as printing, promotion and accounting fees, and a return on investment for the nonprofit. And, your selling window is finite. You must let everyone know upfront the date of the drawing. This can’t get pushed back if you haven’t sold your minimum number of tickets. Some states require you specify the maximum number of tickets that will be sold. Many require that prior to the start of ticket sales the nonprofit have possession of the property or at least be able to guarantee that the winner will get the house. This puts the nonprofit at great financial risk.

Few organizations have databases that are large enough to generate sufficient ticket sales, considering that not everyone will be interested in buying a chance. Raffles are not tax deductible and only a relatively small portion of the total proceeds are likely to go toward the organization’s mission. So, unless the buyer actually wants your property, there is minimal incentive to purchase a ticket. And why would someone want to take a chance on an unknown entity – even for $50, plus sales and property taxes? That goes for speculators, too. (Realistically, how many of those are out there – especially today when the property could take a long time to flip?) Are you going to allow anyone who wants to, to traipse through your house? At a minimum you should consider setting up a virtual tour if you move forward.

Often those most willing to purchase the tickets are those closest to the project – the organization’s volunteers working to sell tickets. However, as the Cystic Fibrosis Gold Coast Guild in Florida found out when one of its volunteers won a home raffle it sponsored in the ‘90s, that can potentially result in a public relations nightmare. An accounting firm conducted the raffle for Cystic Fibrosis and certified its results, but that didn’t satisfy some ticket buyers who felt the organization’s volunteers should have been excluded from participating.

So how can you sell sufficient tickets? On the Internet? That raises a whole series of other issues. (See “A Raffle and the Internet,” July 2006) Even old fashioned friend-to-friend or snail-mail ticket sales can raise problems. Some communities do not allow raffles, even if the state and neighboring communities do. Some postmasters will allow raffle tickets to go through the mail and others won’t. (See “Should You Hold a Raffle?,” Nonprofit World, January/February 1995)

I’m sorry to put a damper on your idea, but again, my concern is for the nonprofits, and I do not think this is a good deal for them. Still, if you wish to pursue this further, you might want to look to websites like www.USAhomeraffle.com or www.charityhomeraffle.us, which match property owners with nonprofits and facilitate the raffle process. (Note: the mention of these websites should not be seen as an endorsement.)

I wish you luck in dealing with this very difficult situation.