Have you hugged your grant writer lately? Okay. Not all grant proposal writers are nerds.
But lets face it. Who comes to mind when you're thinking of someone who not only writes, but really understands numbers, enjoys spread sheets, gets into research, actually uses good grammar, and thrills at finding just the right word?
Hint: it's not someone on the Yahoo! Buzz Log. You might try looking up "nerd" at Dictionary.com - "an intelligent but single-minded person obsessed with a nonsocial hobby or pursuit."
A Director of Development of a ~$2M nonprofit just told me that she's covered her budget with over four months left in the fiscal year. More significantly, the organization's foundation revenue for the year has doubled from about $300K last year to over $600K this year.
Not too shabby for fund raising during these "interesting" economic times. What did she do differently in the last year?
For one thing, she got more help. A year ago she had one full time person who helped her coordinate volunteers, run special events, manage the data base, do the research, and write newsletters, thank you notes, appeals, progress reports, and grant proposals. That's a lot of spinning plates for two people trying to grow a 1.5M dollar operation.
That other full time person was replaced twelve months ago with three part time people with focus. The database person knows fundraising databases inside out. The volunteer coordinator energetically keeps finding new hearts and minds to involve in the organization. And the grant geek just researches and writes proposals.
Now to be sure, all four are working together to help each other. There is some overlap. And the three part timers are generating a few more hours each week than the single full timer did a year ago. But the small, additional investment of focused labor is paying some big dividends.
More significantly, the Director of Development can work on the big picture of "growing the business." When it comes to grants, she does the final review of all the proposals without spending time in the tedious business of matching numbers to words or ensuring that all six copies of the nine attachments are printed on three hole paper and attached to this week's proposal.
Do you have a good grant proposal writer? Do you have a forecast? a pipeline? a coverage model? These are things your favorite nerd can handle while you're building relationships with the donors.
None of this works without those donor relationships, but the paperwork has to be exactly right (and on time) if you want to see that big check in the mail. Don't forget to hug your grant proposal writer. They're suckers for just a little appreciation.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Friday, April 18, 2008
Best Nonprofits
We have lots of lists of best companies and best places to work. Fortune offers their 100 best companies at which to work.
AARP offers their list of best employers for workers over 50.
Christianity Today offers their list of the 40 best Christian places to work.
Fast Company offers their list of 45 social entrepreneurs who are changing the world.
Why don't we have a list of the best nonprofits at which to work? or volunteer? You can show how effective (to some degree) your nonprofit is at charity evaluators like Guidestar and Charity Navigator.
But how do you tout your nonprofit as one of the best places to work? How do you stand out from all the rest? Not to short change the need to be effective (see my thoughts on Due Diligence), but why not have another way to distinguish yourself from the others?
This helps you not only attract smart, competent people for the staff, but makes it a whole lot easier to attract and keep great volunteers. Success breeds success.
The best places to work are the ones that consistently outperform their rivals. The Great Place to Work Institute shows that graphically in the for profit world. I'm pretty sure the same principle applies to nonprofits.
So how do you do it?? How do you make your nonprofit the best place to work? Maybe those are more lessons to be learned from the for profit world.
Stay tuned.
AARP offers their list of best employers for workers over 50.
Christianity Today offers their list of the 40 best Christian places to work.
Fast Company offers their list of 45 social entrepreneurs who are changing the world.
Why don't we have a list of the best nonprofits at which to work? or volunteer? You can show how effective (to some degree) your nonprofit is at charity evaluators like Guidestar and Charity Navigator.
But how do you tout your nonprofit as one of the best places to work? How do you stand out from all the rest? Not to short change the need to be effective (see my thoughts on Due Diligence), but why not have another way to distinguish yourself from the others?
This helps you not only attract smart, competent people for the staff, but makes it a whole lot easier to attract and keep great volunteers. Success breeds success.
The best places to work are the ones that consistently outperform their rivals. The Great Place to Work Institute shows that graphically in the for profit world. I'm pretty sure the same principle applies to nonprofits.
So how do you do it?? How do you make your nonprofit the best place to work? Maybe those are more lessons to be learned from the for profit world.
Stay tuned.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Competent or Brilliant?
What’s your nonprofit like? Is it really good, semi-great, or just limping along?
Master marketer Seth Godin in his book, Small is the New Big makes the point that people and companies can either be competent or brilliant. Given those two choices, I think you would hope your organization is competent. Or would you?
Godin contends that competent organizations have “a predictable, reliable process for solving a particular set of problems. They solve the problem the same way, every time.” Sounds good to me.
Competence is a good thing when you’re going out for your favorite burger and fries. You want what you want. You don’t want any variations. You depend on getting exactly those flavors you crave.
A competent burger joint in my neck of the woods is Gazeebo Burgers. They have maybe the best vege burger in town. It’s good food at a good price. There buns are great! It’s always consistent. It’s something you can depend on when you’re hungry. The good folks at Gazeebo Burgers are very competent in what they do.
But it’s real tough to get a green hatch chili burger there.
A brilliant restaurant a couple of miles away is Tramontana. These guys get a “wow” when it comes to satisfying your taste buds! But their menu changes on a regular basis. It’s almost always great…but not always always great. Sometimes, they don’t come close. It’s those times that I find myself wishing for that good ol' Gazeebo burger.
The Tramontana chef creates menus based on what provisions are available. He adapts to what is in season. Often those creations are brilliant. But they’re not to everyone’s tastes. That's the risk he takes with changing menus.
So there are my (and Godin’s) comparisons of a competent eatery to a brilliant restaurant. The competent is consistent. To the point of always being the same. Not a bad thing as long as you don’t have to adapt to change.
Now are you getting my point about organizations? When is the last time you looked at your strategic plan? When is the last time you had to change because your clients or your donors were facing new challenges?
It’s good to be competent. Necessary even. But you have got to have a little of that brilliant gene in your organizational DNA. You need it not just to react and adapt to change, but to anticipate it. Otherwise you may soon find a brilliant burger joint moving in around the corner.
Master marketer Seth Godin in his book, Small is the New Big makes the point that people and companies can either be competent or brilliant. Given those two choices, I think you would hope your organization is competent. Or would you?
Godin contends that competent organizations have “a predictable, reliable process for solving a particular set of problems. They solve the problem the same way, every time.” Sounds good to me.
Competence is a good thing when you’re going out for your favorite burger and fries. You want what you want. You don’t want any variations. You depend on getting exactly those flavors you crave.
A competent burger joint in my neck of the woods is Gazeebo Burgers. They have maybe the best vege burger in town. It’s good food at a good price. There buns are great! It’s always consistent. It’s something you can depend on when you’re hungry. The good folks at Gazeebo Burgers are very competent in what they do.
But it’s real tough to get a green hatch chili burger there.
A brilliant restaurant a couple of miles away is Tramontana. These guys get a “wow” when it comes to satisfying your taste buds! But their menu changes on a regular basis. It’s almost always great…but not always always great. Sometimes, they don’t come close. It’s those times that I find myself wishing for that good ol' Gazeebo burger.
The Tramontana chef creates menus based on what provisions are available. He adapts to what is in season. Often those creations are brilliant. But they’re not to everyone’s tastes. That's the risk he takes with changing menus.
So there are my (and Godin’s) comparisons of a competent eatery to a brilliant restaurant. The competent is consistent. To the point of always being the same. Not a bad thing as long as you don’t have to adapt to change.
Now are you getting my point about organizations? When is the last time you looked at your strategic plan? When is the last time you had to change because your clients or your donors were facing new challenges?
It’s good to be competent. Necessary even. But you have got to have a little of that brilliant gene in your organizational DNA. You need it not just to react and adapt to change, but to anticipate it. Otherwise you may soon find a brilliant burger joint moving in around the corner.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Fruit of the Nonprofit
It's been right under my nose all this time, and I just now saw it. I love nonprofits. Actually I love good nonprofits and find myself wanting to gently weed our garden of the bad nonprofits.
What does it take to make a good nonprofit? A lot of seeds are planted to grow nonprofits. Some turn out much better than others. They bear fruit. How do you get that good fruit? The answer was in the Bible right under my nose.
Pull out that dusty old Bible of yours and check out Galatians 5:22-23. Don't worry, you don't have to be a believer or even a spiritual kind of person to read this (it does help if you're literate).
That passage says that "the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control." To me, these are the common denominators for good nonprofits:
Love - is your organization motivated by genuine love for your cause?
Joy - do the key leaders exhibit a steady, contented joy, even during trying times?
Peace - do staff and volunteers feel a sense of peace as they tackle the mission?
Longsuffering - can you wait patiently knowing you're doing the right thing and wait for people and programs to grow steadily and strongly?
Kindness - do the people of the organization really care about who or what they serve?
Goodness - does everyone really want what's best for its constituents...even if it means stepping back to allow others to do a better job?
Faithfulness - are we keeping our commitments to the mission?
Gentleness - is our strength under control? can we speak loving truth?
Self-control - do we have the discipline to stay within budget and make progress towards our goals?
Not a bad checklist, huh? I'd like to take credit for coming up with this, but a guy name Paul wrote it around 50 A.D. (amazingly, there's a few original copies around, I think). Also, John Maxwell in his Leadership Bible uses the same characteristics to describe leaders.
Fruit is a good thing, isn't it?
What does it take to make a good nonprofit? A lot of seeds are planted to grow nonprofits. Some turn out much better than others. They bear fruit. How do you get that good fruit? The answer was in the Bible right under my nose.
Pull out that dusty old Bible of yours and check out Galatians 5:22-23. Don't worry, you don't have to be a believer or even a spiritual kind of person to read this (it does help if you're literate).
That passage says that "the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control." To me, these are the common denominators for good nonprofits:
Love - is your organization motivated by genuine love for your cause?
Joy - do the key leaders exhibit a steady, contented joy, even during trying times?
Peace - do staff and volunteers feel a sense of peace as they tackle the mission?
Longsuffering - can you wait patiently knowing you're doing the right thing and wait for people and programs to grow steadily and strongly?
Kindness - do the people of the organization really care about who or what they serve?
Goodness - does everyone really want what's best for its constituents...even if it means stepping back to allow others to do a better job?
Faithfulness - are we keeping our commitments to the mission?
Gentleness - is our strength under control? can we speak loving truth?
Self-control - do we have the discipline to stay within budget and make progress towards our goals?
Not a bad checklist, huh? I'd like to take credit for coming up with this, but a guy name Paul wrote it around 50 A.D. (amazingly, there's a few original copies around, I think). Also, John Maxwell in his Leadership Bible uses the same characteristics to describe leaders.
Fruit is a good thing, isn't it?
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Conversation with the Mayor
Had a little visit with my buddy, the mayor, earlier this month. Okay, it wasn't just me. It was me and 200 or so others active in the nonprofit world of Dallas.
And, though I believe Tom Leppert is a good guy, we're really not buddies. But I sure have to give him credit for spending time answering questions off the cuff on a wide variety of subjects. I'm not sure previous Dallas mayors have spent time in a town hall meeting like the one organized by the Center for Nonprofit Management on January 16th.
The Center is an active member of the National Council of Nonprofit Associations, the national coordinator of the Nonprofit Congress. Other nonprofit groups are meeting in various cities around the country in preparation for the upcoming national meeting in June. There they will address the three current national priorities for nonprofits:
The mayor believes that the future of Dallas is in the hands of the nonprofits. He wants to encourage an entrepreneurial attack on problems from different angles. Some solutions will work. Some will not. Even in failure, there is value from this approach.
Mr. Leppert went on to say that unless the poorer rooftops of the city are improved, the more wealthy rooftops cannot continue to support the city. His goal is to make Dallas more competitive. Not just in Texas. Not just in the U. S. He wants Dallas to be more competitive among world cities.
Hear, hear, Mr. Mayor. Set that bar high. Extremely high. We've got a lot of work to do.
And, though I believe Tom Leppert is a good guy, we're really not buddies. But I sure have to give him credit for spending time answering questions off the cuff on a wide variety of subjects. I'm not sure previous Dallas mayors have spent time in a town hall meeting like the one organized by the Center for Nonprofit Management on January 16th.
The Center is an active member of the National Council of Nonprofit Associations, the national coordinator of the Nonprofit Congress. Other nonprofit groups are meeting in various cities around the country in preparation for the upcoming national meeting in June. There they will address the three current national priorities for nonprofits:
- Organizational effectiveness and efficiency (a familiar subject in earlier postings)
- Acting collectively for positive change (a more familiar subject from the past)
- Public awareness
The mayor believes that the future of Dallas is in the hands of the nonprofits. He wants to encourage an entrepreneurial attack on problems from different angles. Some solutions will work. Some will not. Even in failure, there is value from this approach.
Mr. Leppert went on to say that unless the poorer rooftops of the city are improved, the more wealthy rooftops cannot continue to support the city. His goal is to make Dallas more competitive. Not just in Texas. Not just in the U. S. He wants Dallas to be more competitive among world cities.
Hear, hear, Mr. Mayor. Set that bar high. Extremely high. We've got a lot of work to do.
Monday, December 31, 2007
Due Diligence
There's over 9,000 nonprofits in Dallas County today. More than 3,500 of them filed a 990 tax return so say the smart folks at Urban Institute. With that many working nonprofits in town, chances are that there's someone trying to do the same thing you're doing.
Okay. Let's narrow the field from that 3,500+ and add another filter to look just at your cause: healthcare, poverty, children, environment, aging, the arts, whatever. Chances are that you've still got somewhere between 5 and 25 other nonprofits trying to do something very similar to what you're doing. That makes it a little challenging to raise more money and excite more volunteers year after year.
You may be slightly different or very different from your peers (aka partners .... aka competitors). But to potential donors who want to help fight poverty, for example, all the homeless organizations look the same at first blush. The fact is they are mostly very different.
How do you distinguish yourself??
It's no longer enough that you have a compelling case statement. (Although you can take some comfort in knowing that some of your peers have not reviewed or updated their mission statement or web site in years.) Being current and relevant certainly helps you distinguish yourself.
Each year, donors ask better questions and perform more due diligence about the nonprofits to whom they may give. It's important for the nonprofits to improve their own due diligence.
The keys for many donors are:
- show me the numbers!! (quantities, percentages, benchmarks, results, results, results)
- show me some independent evaluation
- show up (as either a volunteer or a site visitor)
Showing up is not a popular choice for many foundations, donors, and evaluators. It takes time. You might be uncomfortable in the surroundings. You might get dirty. (I'll save this rant for another time.)
GiveWell is a new foundation in NYC with the noble intent of evaluating charities in different fields and making the results public. They began this with big hearts, good business brains, and a real drive to bring efficiency and order to the evaluation process (ahhh....the appeal to my own left brain....). There are other evaluators across the country.
Many nonprofit evaluators are still learning that there's a lot more to evaluations than just cranking the numbers and publishing the results. For one thing, the numbers on true effectiveness are elusive. It's often made more difficult by our mobile society and the fact that many clients just don't stay in touch on a consistent basis.
The best way to distinguish your nonprofit is to show everyone how effective you are. Until you can get the donors and evaluators to show up for site visits or as volunteers (....do you have a really good volunteer coordinator???....), you need to be able to show you're effectiveness. It takes a process to measure your successes. That costs time and money, but it needs to be done.
You may learn something about your organization. It may mean a very critical self examination of what's working and what's not. It may take real guts to change. But you've got to ask yourself, why you do what you do? Who are you really trying to help?
Whether you're new or have been in this business for years, it's absolutely vital that you not only show everyone you are different, but that you make a difference. Due diligence and investments in process, self examination, and change will pay big dividends for everyone involved.
Okay. Let's narrow the field from that 3,500+ and add another filter to look just at your cause: healthcare, poverty, children, environment, aging, the arts, whatever. Chances are that you've still got somewhere between 5 and 25 other nonprofits trying to do something very similar to what you're doing. That makes it a little challenging to raise more money and excite more volunteers year after year.
You may be slightly different or very different from your peers (aka partners .... aka competitors). But to potential donors who want to help fight poverty, for example, all the homeless organizations look the same at first blush. The fact is they are mostly very different.
How do you distinguish yourself??
It's no longer enough that you have a compelling case statement. (Although you can take some comfort in knowing that some of your peers have not reviewed or updated their mission statement or web site in years.) Being current and relevant certainly helps you distinguish yourself.
Each year, donors ask better questions and perform more due diligence about the nonprofits to whom they may give. It's important for the nonprofits to improve their own due diligence.
The keys for many donors are:
- show me the numbers!! (quantities, percentages, benchmarks, results, results, results)
- show me some independent evaluation
- show up (as either a volunteer or a site visitor)
Showing up is not a popular choice for many foundations, donors, and evaluators. It takes time. You might be uncomfortable in the surroundings. You might get dirty. (I'll save this rant for another time.)
GiveWell is a new foundation in NYC with the noble intent of evaluating charities in different fields and making the results public. They began this with big hearts, good business brains, and a real drive to bring efficiency and order to the evaluation process (ahhh....the appeal to my own left brain....). There are other evaluators across the country.
Many nonprofit evaluators are still learning that there's a lot more to evaluations than just cranking the numbers and publishing the results. For one thing, the numbers on true effectiveness are elusive. It's often made more difficult by our mobile society and the fact that many clients just don't stay in touch on a consistent basis.
The best way to distinguish your nonprofit is to show everyone how effective you are. Until you can get the donors and evaluators to show up for site visits or as volunteers (....do you have a really good volunteer coordinator???....), you need to be able to show you're effectiveness. It takes a process to measure your successes. That costs time and money, but it needs to be done.
You may learn something about your organization. It may mean a very critical self examination of what's working and what's not. It may take real guts to change. But you've got to ask yourself, why you do what you do? Who are you really trying to help?
Whether you're new or have been in this business for years, it's absolutely vital that you not only show everyone you are different, but that you make a difference. Due diligence and investments in process, self examination, and change will pay big dividends for everyone involved.
Saturday, December 22, 2007
Wiki Social Science
Does your nonprofit really offer what your end user clients need? Or are they just taking what's offered even though they really need something else?
Currently I'm on a church committee with a goal to facilitate social, economic, and spiritual transformation in one of the poorest areas of Dallas. Realizing it's nearly impossible to find a solution until you've identified the problem, I've been a part of two different surveys to determine the main problems in this area of need.
Results from both surveys were very similar. But two things bother me about these surveys:
1) they were conducted by well meaning people who had little training in preparing or conducting surveys
2) over 90% of the participants represented only about 40% of the people in the area
How can we be sure we are addressing the real problems in the area???
The Wall Street Journal recently had an article on investment research and wiki's. Wiki's are a fascinating way to me (a yawner to my wife) of collaborating on most anything. Wikipedia is currently the most prominent example of lots of people working together.
In Everybody's an Analyst the writer discusses a new kind of web site that offers financial information from a broad group of people acting unofficially (and with little regulation) in concert.
This has significant limitations when it comes to investment advice, but what about research? Especially in the area of social science.
Accurate surveys cost money. Even if you get a nearby university to put its students at work on this.
But if there was a demographics wiki web site available, it seems to me that lots of nonprofits could take advantage of better information on their end user clients.
Imagine that. Getting more efficient on the cheap. Actually working together, maybe even towards a clearly defined goal.
Are there any smart people out there working on this?
Currently I'm on a church committee with a goal to facilitate social, economic, and spiritual transformation in one of the poorest areas of Dallas. Realizing it's nearly impossible to find a solution until you've identified the problem, I've been a part of two different surveys to determine the main problems in this area of need.
Results from both surveys were very similar. But two things bother me about these surveys:
1) they were conducted by well meaning people who had little training in preparing or conducting surveys
2) over 90% of the participants represented only about 40% of the people in the area
How can we be sure we are addressing the real problems in the area???
The Wall Street Journal recently had an article on investment research and wiki's. Wiki's are a fascinating way to me (a yawner to my wife) of collaborating on most anything. Wikipedia is currently the most prominent example of lots of people working together.
In Everybody's an Analyst the writer discusses a new kind of web site that offers financial information from a broad group of people acting unofficially (and with little regulation) in concert.
This has significant limitations when it comes to investment advice, but what about research? Especially in the area of social science.
Accurate surveys cost money. Even if you get a nearby university to put its students at work on this.
But if there was a demographics wiki web site available, it seems to me that lots of nonprofits could take advantage of better information on their end user clients.
Imagine that. Getting more efficient on the cheap. Actually working together, maybe even towards a clearly defined goal.
Are there any smart people out there working on this?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)