This blog is still relatively new, and one always questions whether anyone's reading a new blog -- especially when no comments are posted. Turns out that some people are reading. That's good; I need to be sure I write things worth reading!
Friday, May 30, 2008
No Comments Doesn't Mean No Traffic
I was surprised and pleased to receive an e-mail this morning from the Executive Director of OMBwatch in Washington, DC. He read my blog post yesterday on nonprofits and lobbying, and wrote to thank me for referencing the "SNAP" research project. [SNAP was a collaboration of OMBwatch and the Center for Lobbying in the Public Interest.]
This blog is still relatively new, and one always questions whether anyone's reading a new blog -- especially when no comments are posted. Turns out that some people are reading. That's good; I need to be sure I write things worth reading!
This blog is still relatively new, and one always questions whether anyone's reading a new blog -- especially when no comments are posted. Turns out that some people are reading. That's good; I need to be sure I write things worth reading!
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Charities, Associations, and Lobbying
I am participating in an interesting discussion on the American Society of Association Executives (ASAE's) discussion list for executive directors. To what extent can a charity lobby, and how is it different from an association's lobbying?
Here's part of one post:
...most 501(c)3s, and most people, for that matter, define the term "lobby" too narrowly. It is entirely legal and appropriate for a charity to spend a substantial part of their time and budget in advocacy and public education/information (assuming such activities are part of their stated missions).
OMBWatch did a study on this topic a few years ago called the "Strengthening Nonprofit Advocacy Project" or "SNAP." Here's a link to the executive summary, which includes links to a press release and PowerPoint presentation:
http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/769/1/101/
I also reviewed two books on nonprofit political action for the current issue of the journal "Nonprofit Management and Leadership" (http://www.josseybass.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-NML.html). I can send my copy to anyone who would like it. The books are "Hardball Lobbying for Nonprofits: Real Advocacy for Nonprofits in the New Century," by Barry Hessenius and "Lobbying for Social Change, Third Edition," by Willard C. Richan.
Here's part of one post:
...most 501(c)3s, and most people, for that matter, define the term "lobby" too narrowly. It is entirely legal and appropriate for a charity to spend a substantial part of their time and budget in advocacy and public education/information (assuming such activities are part of their stated missions).
OMBWatch did a study on this topic a few years ago called the "Strengthening Nonprofit Advocacy Project" or "SNAP." Here's a link to the executive summary, which includes links to a press release and PowerPoint presentation:
http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/769/1/101/
I also reviewed two books on nonprofit political action for the current issue of the journal "Nonprofit Management and Leadership" (http://www.josseybass.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-NML.html). I can send my copy to anyone who would like it. The books are "Hardball Lobbying for Nonprofits: Real Advocacy for Nonprofits in the New Century," by Barry Hessenius and "Lobbying for Social Change, Third Edition," by Willard C. Richan.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Executive transitions and real costs
It seems so simple, but so many people miss it....
We've had occasion to assist with several senior executive transitions for clients. The CEO/ED resigns (or is fired), and we're asked to assist with identifying an interim CEO/ED and/or recruiting a new CEO/ED.
We aren't an executive recruitment firm, but we do have a senior partner who is both an LPC and an SPHR. This, coupled with the relative lack of recruiting firms with nonprofit sector expertise, makes us a resource for nonprofits in transition.
The costs of the transition process are usually expressed in terms of dollars spent on severance pay, advertising for the new person, the costs of the interim exec, and, sometimes, even the costs of a good consultant to assist in the process.
The problem with this assessment is that the real costs should be expressed in terms of lost productivity and lost opportunities, both before the departure of the first executive and after the arrival of the new executive. Viewed in this light, the "hard dollar" costs of executive transition pale in comparison.
What to do? First, don't get too used to the "comfortable problem" executive. If the issue is addressed early, perhaps executive coaching can help the individual become more productive and happier. This may mean having a better employee, or it may mean knowing sooner rather than later than a change needs to be made. Earlier intervention, regardless of the outcome, is less expensive than living with the "comfortable problem."
If coaching doesn't work, or if it's too late for coaching, make the tough choice and free the executive to seek other opportunities. Worrying about severance pay, advertising costs, recruiter fees, etc., distracts from the mission-focused attention to true value or return on investment (ROI).
We've had occasion to assist with several senior executive transitions for clients. The CEO/ED resigns (or is fired), and we're asked to assist with identifying an interim CEO/ED and/or recruiting a new CEO/ED.
We aren't an executive recruitment firm, but we do have a senior partner who is both an LPC and an SPHR. This, coupled with the relative lack of recruiting firms with nonprofit sector expertise, makes us a resource for nonprofits in transition.
The costs of the transition process are usually expressed in terms of dollars spent on severance pay, advertising for the new person, the costs of the interim exec, and, sometimes, even the costs of a good consultant to assist in the process
The problem with this assessment is that the real costs should be expressed in terms of lost productivity and lost opportunities, both before the departure of the first executive and after the arrival of the new executive. Viewed in this light, the "hard dollar" costs of executive transition pale in comparison.
What to do? First, don't get too used to the "comfortable problem" executive. If the issue is addressed early, perhaps executive coaching can help the individual become more productive and happier. This may mean having a better employee, or it may mean knowing sooner rather than later than a change needs to be made. Earlier intervention, regardless of the outcome, is less expensive than living with the "comfortable problem."
If coaching doesn't work, or if it's too late for coaching, make the tough choice and free the executive to seek other opportunities. Worrying about severance pay, advertising costs, recruiter fees, etc., distracts from the mission-focused attention to true value or return on investment (ROI).
Monday, May 5, 2008
Committing Intentional Grantsmanship
Some nonprofits, even those that have been around for a long time, can't commit to a grants strategy. They talk a good game, but they allow small issues to stop them from doing more than occasionally throwing an application out to "see what happens."
I just wrote to a client this morning: "Your experience may demonstrate the necessity of your Board being willing to commit to a comprehensive grantsmanship strategy as an element of [the organization's] development plan. Having a predetermined budget for grants development and being able to spend it as opportunities arise will help you be more flexible and more successful.
"In the meantime, definitely pursue the CCR and grants.gov registration process. You might also want to have your project director level and above staff, including yourself, update their resumes for use in grant applications. Specifically include your fiscal officer, as their credentials in administering funds can be a bonus in being awarded grants."
"A predetermined budget" can be expressed in terms of staff, consulting/professional fees, or a combination. It's good to also budget some travel for conferences and briefings, as an increasing number of Federal agencies and some foundations conduct periodic workshops for grant-seekers.
The nonprofit's budget is the expression of its strategic plan in currency. If you're not devoting resources to grantsmanship, how serious are you -- really?
I just wrote to a client this morning: "Your experience may demonstrate the necessity of your Board being willing to commit to a comprehensive grantsmanship strategy as an element of [the organization's] development plan. Having a predetermined budget for grants development and being able to spend it as opportunities arise will help you be more flexible and more successful.
"In the meantime, definitely pursue the CCR and grants.gov registration process. You might also want to have your project director level and above staff, including yourself, update their resumes for use in grant applications. Specifically include your fiscal officer, as their credentials in administering funds can be a bonus in being awarded grants."
"A predetermined budget" can be expressed in terms of staff, consulting/professional fees, or a combination. It's good to also budget some travel for conferences and briefings, as an increasing number of Federal agencies and some foundations conduct periodic workshops for grant-seekers.
The nonprofit's budget is the expression of its strategic plan in currency. If you're not devoting resources to grantsmanship, how serious are you -- really?
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Charities Soliciting Businesses
I had dinner last night with friends who are also local business owners. They expressed dismay and some disgust with charities that take their generosity for granted, and/or use cheap "salesmanship" tactics to induce them to give.
One example is the phone call: "We appreciate your past support and ask for a $1,000 gift." When asked, the caller admits that it's been three years since he's given any gift, and the last gift was $100!
Another example is the vendor/supplier who drops in on the account owner and asks for a charitable gift to a charity of the vendor's choice. The account owner agrees to a $1,000 gift, whereupon the vendor complains that they had "had him down for a $7,000 gift." The vendor got a $1,000 gift and lost the account because the owner was so offended.
These are two examples of poor fundraising. Whether the charities are to blame is a separate issue. Why? Because both examples are of VOLUNTEER fundraisers making the ask. I don't know whether the volunteers were trained by the charity, and whether the volunteers ignored any training they might have received.
The charity needs to remember that volunteers become the "face" and "image" of the charity. They can do much good -- AND MUCH HARM -- in that role. The observations of these business owners emphasize that donors often don't distinguish between the fundraiser, the cause, and the charity.
The charity using volunteers to solicit funds needs to pay attention to training, especially in the area of image. Charities should redirect those volunteers who are averse to training away from contact with major and corporate donors.
One example is the phone call: "We appreciate your past support and ask for a $1,000 gift." When asked, the caller admits that it's been three years since he's given any gift, and the last gift was $100!
Another example is the vendor/supplier who drops in on the account owner and asks for a charitable gift to a charity of the vendor's choice. The account owner agrees to a $1,000 gift, whereupon the vendor complains that they had "had him down for a $7,000 gift." The vendor got a $1,000 gift and lost the account because the owner was so offended.
These are two examples of poor fundraising. Whether the charities are to blame is a separate issue. Why? Because both examples are of VOLUNTEER fundraisers making the ask. I don't know whether the volunteers were trained by the charity, and whether the volunteers ignored any training they might have received.
The charity needs to remember that volunteers become the "face" and "image" of the charity. They can do much good -- AND MUCH HARM -- in that role. The observations of these business owners emphasize that donors often don't distinguish between the fundraiser, the cause, and the charity.
The charity using volunteers to solicit funds needs to pay attention to training, especially in the area of image. Charities should redirect those volunteers who are averse to training away from contact with major and corporate donors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
