resource development – Page 2 – The Healthy Non-Profit

All posts pertaining to cultivation, solicitation, and stewardship

Charitable giving was anemic in 2011

July 3, 2012 DonorDreams Fundraising, resource development

It is that time of the year when Giving USA releases its findings on how well (or not so well) the charitable giving sector did in the previous year. After adjusting for inflation, the experts tell us that charitable giving rose less than one percent in 2011, and individual giving did about the same.

You can secure a free copy of executive summary of Giving USA’s report from their online store or by clicking here.

A few observations

Nothing has changed. The charitable giving sector has been in a holding pattern for a number of years since the economic crash of 2008. It mirrors the slow sluggish economic recovery numbers. Is anyone surprised? I know that I am not.
It could be worse. Charitable giving dropped by dropped by double digits in 2008 and 2009. Complaining about a one percent increase feels wrong when juxtaposed against those historic numbers.
Good is still good. Look around your community and you will see three different kinds of non-profit agencies . . . ones that are struggling, ones that are holding their own, and ones that are have found a way to do well.

The bottom line is very simple for me. Donors have less money (or feel like they have less money) and started prioritizing their charitable giving. Figuring out their priorities and how to remain a priority is as simple as asking them.

Are you a non-profit organization that has either weathered the storm or done fairly well since the 2008-09 economic crash? If so, please scroll down and share why you think that is in the comment section.

Here’s to your health!

Erik Anderson
Founder & President, The Healthy Non-Profit LLC
www.thehealthynonprofit.com
erik@thehealthynonprofit.com
http://twitter.com/#!/eanderson847
http://www.facebook.com/eanderson847
http://www.linkedin.com/in/erikanderson847

Kony 2012: How Viral Video Messaging Can Make an Impact

March 12, 2012 DonorDreams Mondays with Marissa, resource development, technology

Last Wednesday, I woke up to see the same video posted countless times on Facebook and Twitter. It was a 30 minute documentary about the leader of the Lords Resistance Army, Joseph Kony, and what he has done to the people of Uganda. This seemed strange to me because I can’t think of the last time I discussed the situation in Uganda with many of my friends. What was it that suddenly got a large number of people interested in what is happening on the other side of the world? So, I watched the video.

Video is a powerful medium that can be used to raise awareness about your mission. But how do you make a video that people want to share?

Make it personal

KONY 2012 starts off, talking about the world and how “humanity’s greatest desire is to belong and connect”.

Who cannot identify with that? We are all human. We all want to belong. In fact, the reason why I watched the video in the first place was because I wanted to belong to the community of people that knew what this video was about.

The movie continues with a home video from the birth of the director’s son. How much more personal can a person get? We all were born and some of you are parents. Because of that, this clip does wonders for connecting the audience to the cause and once the audience is connected. They are instantly more interested in what comes next.

How can you achieve this in your video? Go straight to the source. Talk to the people who are impacted by your organization. Show your audience how you make a difference in both your client’s life as well as for the community.

Make it special

There are a couple of key points in KONY 2012 where the narrator lets the audience know they are special. He states, “99% of the world doesn’t even know who Joseph Kony is”. He is letting you in on a secret; giving you information a lot of other people don’t have. People love to feel like they know something that someone else doesn’t. This works to the filmmaker’s advantage because a lot of people wanted to tell their secret after watching the video.

You might not have a mission that is as unique as stopping a Ugandan warlord, but you can define a unique problem that needs solving and tell people about it.

As a nonprofit staff person, it is easy to think that everyone knows about your mission and what you are trying to achieve because you personally live and breathe it every day. But what about those who don’t?

What specific part of your mission do you want them to focus on in order to become more interested in your organization? What don’t they already know?

Make it urgent (and give directions)

KONY 2012 is titled KONY 2012 for a reason. The organization behind the film, Invisible Children, wants Joseph Kony arrested by the end of this year. That’s not a lot of time. They want you to get involved now. Invisible Children has organized an action day in April of 2012, which creates even more urgency for your involvement. The film gives the audience four specific actions they can take to get involved now — one of which is very simply is to share the video.

People want to help. You just have to tell them how they can. In my exerperience, people are more willing to do something if they are given clear and easy instruction (e.g. “share this video”)

One more observation . . . KONY 2012 is 30 minutes long. At the time of writing this post, it has received over 71 million views on YouTube. This is incredible since most videos that go viral are under four minutes long. Take the time to tell your story to build your community. If you connect with your audience, they’ll be sure to stick around. More importantly, they will want to share it with others.

Hopefully, you find my observations about KONY 2012 helpful as your non-profit investigates online video as a way to extend your social media messaging. You might also want to check out YouTube’s Nonprofit Program.

Do you currently use videos in your social media messaging? If so, is it more for an awareness campaign or as a direct call for donations? What methods do you find to be the most successful? I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments!

Are you and your non-profit agency a fundraising leader?

January 24, 2012 DonorDreams Fundraising, resource development

This week at DonorDreams we are talking about what it looks like to be a fundraising “LEADER”. Today, we will frame the issue using a few of Noel Tichy’s ideas around leadership. The rest of the week we will examine other points of view on the subject as well as examples of good leaders.

Noel Tichy is an iconic figure in the field of leadership. He has authored and co-authored the following books on this very popular subject: Control Your Destiny or Someone Else Will, The Leadership Engine, and Judgment: How Winning Leaders Make Great Calls. While it would be impossible to summarize all of what Tichy believes about leadership into this very small blog post, I believe the following key principles from chapter three of The Leadership Engine captures some of it nicely:

Leaders accomplish their goals through the people they teach
Leaders teach others to be leaders, not followers
Leaders consider teaching on their primary roles
Leaders use every opportunity to learn and to teach
Leaders have clear ideas and values, based on knowledge and experience
Leaders articulate those lessons to others

In that same chapter of the book, Tichy quotes former Honeywell CEO, Larry Bossidy, as saying:

“How am I doing as a leader? The answer is how are the people you lead doing?”

Hmmmm . . . all of this got me thinking! If leaders teach and if leaders can be evaluated by those they lead, then would Tichy advocate that a non-profit and fundraising leader be evaluated through a “donor lens”?

After some careful consideration, I think Tichy would probably agree and I think the following questions can shed lots of light on whether you are leading or just raising money:

Do your donors know what the goals of your agency are?
Do you know what your key donors’ personal goals are with regards to their philanthropy?
In your efforts to cultivate new prospective donors, do you teach them what to expect as a donor to your agency and how to engage your organization in being accountable to them and their fellow donors?
Do your donors know what your agency’s values are? Do they see and echo your edge and emotional energy around your mission?
Do your donors enthusiastically go out into the community and teach others about your mission and enlist the support of new prospective donors?

If you can answer ‘YES’ to many of these questions, then congratulations . . . “You very well might be a fundraising leader.” If you fall a little short, then there might be a little bit of work for you to do.

And what does this work look like? Well, I’m happy to say it is probably something you should fold into your existing donor stewardship efforts (e.g. focus groups, donor surveys, stewardship receptions with a mission-focus, engaging donors in prospect cultivation efforts, etc).

How do you propose we take measure of whether or not you and your agency are non-profit and fundraising leaders? Does it even matter to you or do you think it is more important to just focus on fundraising outputs (e.g. cash raised, goals attained, etc)? Are you trying to create what Tichy refers to as a “virtuous teaching cycle” with your donors? If so, what does that look like?

Please scroll down and share your thoughts on some of these questions in the comment box because we can all learn from each other.

Here’s to your health!

It’s Hip to Be Square: Accepting Donations From Your Phone

January 23, 2012 DonorDreams Fundraising, Mondays with Marissa, resource development, technology

The other day, I received an email from the non-profit where my mom works about the auction items that would be available at their annual special event. Having worked behind the scenes at similar events in the past, one thing came to mind — payment processing. In my experience, the task requires a lot of attention to detail in order to make sure things run smoothly.

This reminded me about a podcast I listened to that mentioned how stores are now able to process payments right from their smart phones using a service called Square. Square provides a free card reader that can be attached to any IOS or Android device (through the headphone jack) to process payments from anywhere. Think about how this flexibility could revolutionize a special event or even the everyday business of a non-profit. Let’s take a look and if it’s the right fit for your organization.

The Pros:

Free Card Reader – I mean, free is good for anyone, even better if you work for a non-profit. Not only is the adapter free, but the app associated with it is free as well.
Familiar Format – Most people have a smart device of some sort and are used to using apps everyday. This prior knowledge can come in handy when it comes to training people to use Square. Furthermore, this familiarity can expand the pool of people who could use a Square card reader to accept donations.
Next Day Direct Deposit – It won’t take long to see those donations show up in the linked bank account. Money is only good, when it’s available, right? Most times after an event, it can take a few days of coordination to get credit card payments, checks and cash in order to take it to the bank. Using Square at least cuts out some of that process.
Secure – Square constantly monitors what is happening across it’s network to look for signs of fraud. Also, Square makes sure that all information in encrypted.
All Major Cards are Accepted – No need to limit payments only to Visa and Master Card. Amex and Discover are welcome here, too.
Data can be Exported – Accurate financial documents are important to the running of any business. Square allows you to have access to that data and you can run your own reports.
Allows for Multiple Users – Each device can be linked to one account so that there can be multiple people at an event. Also, if staff or volunteers have a Square reader and their phone with them out in the community while talking about your mission, a donation by a newly inspired donor can be taken right away without any waiting.
Receipts – can be emailed to donors or printed on site when using an iPad.
No signature needed for payments under $25 – In a day an age where people are donating (albeit in smaller amounts), this feature speeds up the donation process.

The Cons:

Not everyone has a smart device – sad, but true. Even in 2012.
2.75% Transaction Fee – if a $100 donation is collected, your organization will only receive $97.25 after Square collects it’s fee. Granted, you are still receiving most of the money. The fee is collected per transaction and is the same no matter which card is used to process the transaction.
Customer/Donor information is not saved – while this is for the privacy of the customer, most non-profits see this information as essential for their donor database records. One suggestion to overcome this is to give each person a unique number that is attached to their name and contact information. Each transaction made with Square can be edited before it is processed so that this number can be attached.
No Offline Payments – If your event is somewhere with no cell phone data coverage or wifi available, you will have move to your Plan B option because payments cannot be collected and uploaded later.
One Time Payments Only – if you had a donor that wanted to donate $10 a month, this could not be accomplished with Square.

I must admit . . . I am in favor of using Square for the collection of donations (besides, it’s hip to be square) . . . but in the interest of full disclosure, I should admit that I have never used the system myself nor do I have any affiliation with Square. Truth be told, I just wanted to share the system with you because I’ve seen other non-profits struggle with credit card processing (which is never a pretty sight especially at an event with donors rushing to checkout and get home) and I thought this might work for you.

Incorporating technology can make the donation experience easier and more streamlined for the donor. After all, if the donation process is easy and enjoyable, I suspect donors will be more likely will donate again! Right?

Is Square a solution you might be interested in? What has your organization done to streamline its onsite payment procedures? Please share your thoughts using the comment section below!

Choosing the Right Donor Database is like Buying a Car

January 9, 2012 DonorDreams Fundraising, Mondays with Marissa, resource development, technology

Welcome to “Mondays with Marissa” at DonorDreams. Every Monday throughout 2012, we will start your non-profit week off right with a technology related topic before returning our attention to donors, fundraising, resource development and all things non-profit. We hope you enjoy Marissa as a new addition to the DonorDreams family!

Having a donor database that fits the needs of your organization can make a world of difference. So, how do choose the right one? When I sat down to think about it, it is a lot like buying a car.

There are some people who are more impulsive with their car buying than others. They walk into a dealer knowing they want a blue one with a sun roof and satellite radio. While others take their time to research and test drive different models; finding a car that has exactly what they need at a price they can afford. Both consumers get what they want, but the consumer who went with the second approach might have gotten a little more for her money. Let’s apply that strategy to finding the perfect database solution for your organization.

First, you want to make a list of what you are currently using. This not only includes the current donor database you are using (if you are using one), but the types of computers, any paper filing systems, the technological competency of the people responsible for maintaining the database, etc. Everything you are using to keep track of donor interactions should go on this list. It would be helpful to break down each item into as many details as possible. For example, when cataloging the types of computers being used, list how old they are along with the installed operating system. Next to each item, make sure you include a small statement about how well the item is satisfying the needs of the organization. Being specific now will only help you later.

I should note that if there are plans to upgrade technology, expand staff, or change facilities soon, make sure you have all of those details as well. The database you choose will exist in that environment. So, you might as well plan for it.

Second, you want to prioritize the requirements that you want included in your new donor database. This is the fun part. Don’t think about money. I’ll say it again because I know, working at a non-profit you probably don’t hear that very often — don’t think about money. The goal is to figure out what features are needed for the software of your dreams. Think about the functional requirements such as the need for data back-up, ability to print, run reports, can it run on both Mac and PC, does it need to run on both Mac and PC, does it offer a secure log in, is the design customizable, etc.

Next, turn your thoughts to donor management. What functions do you need included to successfully manage your donors? Some items might include: scheduling, reminders, calendars, events, employee matching, the ability to export to Quick Books, and forecasting.

Make your lists detailed and long. Then sit down and prioritize the list into what is needed most. This isn’t to say that you won’t be able to attain everything on your list, but having priorities will help steer you to the right vendors.

Third, investigate your options with the available vendors. (To help you narrow the field, you can check out sites such as techsoup.org and idealware.org.) Then you’ll want to take the information you receive from the vendor and see how it closely matches your lists. This, of course, is where money comes into play. When thinking about the total cost of purchasing a new database system remember that it includes: equipment, maintenance, training, implementation, customization, downtime during conversion and tech failures. Also, don’t forget to question the vendor to make sure that they are a good fit for your organization. Do they have customer service hours when you need them? Do they have a large non-profit customer base? After considering all of these options, choose the product that will work best for you. It might turn out that the best solution is continue using what you already have or switch to using a CRM.

Oh yeah, don’t be afraid to ask for references and check them!

Finding a new donor database that works best for your organization is not so different then buying a car. By assessing what you have, listing what you need and researching what’s out there; you can walk into the dealer as an educated consumer and can walk out with the product that meets your needs, most of the time at the price you had in mind.

Here’s to your health!

Is the glass half full or half empty?

January 6, 2012 DonorDreams Fundraising, nonprofit, resource development

A few days ago, my friend Bob Liming who is the Director of Development at Boys & Girls Clubs of the East Valley in Mesa, Arizona sent me an email with a link to the Alliance of Arizona Nonprofits. Being the curious type of person that I am, I clicked it and was taken to a landing page that summarized the results of a December 2010 non-profit survey commissioned by the Alliance.

Bob asked if I knew of any national surveys that might allow him to do some comparison research or benchmarking. After a little Googling around on the internet, I’ve concluded that the closest thing to a comparison is Guidestar’s survey work. Most recently, Guidestar published “Key Findings of the Late Fall 2011 Nonprofit Fundraising Study“. However, since the Alliance’s survey went out in December 2010, a better apples-to-apples comparison might be Guidestar’s “Key Findings from the 2010 Nonprofit Fundraising Survey“.

While combing through some of this data, I just loved how Guidestar framed their data findings from their most recent Late Fall 2011 survey, when they said:

“The findings of the late fall nonprofit fundraising study, which compare fundraising results during the first nine months of 2011 to those during the same period a year ago, present a glass half empty/glass half full picture“

Another way to look at this is in the context of a “tipping point,” which is of course the point in time when a situation can go in either direction — good or bad.

Looking at the 2011 Guidestar report, I found the following data points interesting:

41- percent of survey respondents said charitable receipts increased in 2011 over 2010, compared to 36-percent in 2010.
8-percent of agencies responding reported they are in danger of closing their doors for financial reasons. However, when you break it down by budget size, the picture changes and 20-percent of smaller organizations find themselves in this position in 2012.

So, today the glass is half full because the unemployment rate fell to its lowest level in three years and charitable giving appears to be slowing improving. However, the glass is half empty because the demand for non-profit services seems to be tremendously increasing and a significant number of smaller non-profit agencies seem to be on the verge of going out of business as government funding dries up.

We’re at a tipping point, indeed! Stay tuned for what is sure to be a very interesting year ahead of us.

As your agency looks forward to 2012, what do you see that is positive for you? What concerns you? Please use the comment box below to share your thoughts as well as what you’re doing to position your agency for survival.

Here’s to your health!

Final tips on building your agency’s individual giving fish tank

December 16, 2011 DonorDreams Fundraising, nonprofit, resource development

Welcome to Friday of individual giving week where we take a step back and try to put everything in perspective. We’re using characters from the movie “Finding Nemo” to look at various individual giving strategies.

“Crush the Turtle” helped us look at special event fundraising on Monday. Tuesday’s post focused on “Marlin” and direct mail. Dory helped us on Wednesday peek at some of the considerations around ePhilanthropy. Yesterday we looked at annual campaigns that have a personal solicitation approach at their core.

So, let’s turn to the dentist character from “Finding Nemo” because I think he wraps-up individual giving week nicely with this movie quote:

“I can’t understand it! Here this thing says it’s got a lifetime guarantee and it breaks! I had to take all the fish out, put ’em in bags, and . . . where’d the fish go?”

We need to always keep in mind the following immutable facts about individual giving strategies:

It isn’t about finding one individual giving tool and using it over and over again. We need to fill our resource development toolbox with a number of different individual giving strategies and use them together.
Once we build a comprehensive strategy that works with our unique set of donors, we need to understand that unlike the dentist’s fish tank there is no lifetime warranty. We need to be vigilant and continue evaluating and tweaking our approach. (e.g. mail lists need to be culled, online strategies are constantly evolving, etc.)
If we don’t couple our individual giving solicitation strategies very closely with a serious stewardship strategy focused on acknowledgement, appreciation, and demonstrating program outcomes/community impact/return on investment, then we’ll find ourselves in the same situation as the dentist with no more fish in the fish tank.
Human being are naturally inclined to want to belong to something and the best individual giving programs focus on that instinct in the following ways:

* evolving their solicitation strategies into a “membership campaign”
*tightly weaving their solicitation strategies together with stewardship activities resulting in “donor recognition societies”.
* developing a case for support that focuses on joining a “winning non-profit team” rather than using dire messages about impending financial crisis and tough economic times.

Being committed to constant evaluation involves developing relationships with our donors, asking for their feedback, and taking the time to engage smart volunteers to help pour over data and figure out what it is telling us. Here are some metrics we need to keep an eye on:

response rates
turnover/loyalty rates
click-through rates from email or social media message to webpage
number of gifts that increased vs. decreased vs. stayed the same
tracking crossover participation between fundraising vehicles
tracking donors and whether or not they are moving up the giving pyramid

The bottom line is this . . . it isn’t good enough to just build a world-class individual giving program that employs multiple strategies and tactics. While these efforts will net fundraising success, you will find your newly built fish tank that is full of pretty donors suddenly empty just a few years later. Remember, individual giving is all about individuals who filter their decisions through an emotional filter and they are always evolving. We need to evolve with those donors and meet them where they are at by committing to a donor-centered approach to resource development.

Finding time to 1) evaluate the data in a collaborative way with volunteers and donors, 2) figure out what it is telling us, and 3) make appropriate adjustments will help guarantee that our fish tank is never empty.

What does your individual giving program look like? How do you monitor your “donor fish tank” to make sure it is clean and not too dirty? What data and metrics do you look at? What tools do you use to gather data (e.g. donor database, donor surveys, focus groups, interviews, etc)? How do you involve fundraising volunteers?

Please take a minute this morning to weigh-in using the comment box below because we can all learn from each other. We have all become the professionals we are today because others took the time to invest in our development and help us grow. Please “pay it forward” with a comment today.

Here’s to your health!

Goldilocks and the three board members: Part 3

December 7, 2011 DonorDreams Board development, Planning, resource development

On Monday, I posted about boards who fail to review their executive director every year. On Tuesday, I posted about boards that get a little muscular with their executive directors and typically abdicate all of this to one overly aggressive board volunteer. Today, I’d like to finish our discussion by talking about what feels right to me.

First, let me say that I don’t think that there is a perfect process for creating an executive director’s annual performance plan or conducting their year-end evaluation. So, I thought that today’s post could just be a laundry list of things I’ve seen really good boards do and then you should weigh-in using the comment box with things you’ve seen that are particularly awesome. So, here we go . . .

The annual performance plan is rooted in the agency’s various written plans (e.g strategic plan, resource development plan, marketing plan, budget, etc)
The objectives in the performance plan are very measurable. So, much so that the executive director knows exactly what they need to do in order to move their evaluation score from a “meets expectation” to “exceeds expectation”
The executive director writes the draft performance plan, turns it over to a board committee (e.g. Human Resource committee), and after massaging the performance plan they take it to the entire board for input, discussion and approval. This way everyone has touched it and owns it.
The performance plan is completed and a final version is the executive director’s hands by the beginning of the year.
The HR committee asks the executive director for a mid-year update on how they’re coming along with their performance plan. Any red flags are brought to the entire board’s attention by the committee chair in executive session. The entire board engages in discussions such as: amending the performance plan, increasing oversight of the executive director, creating a corrective action plan, etc.
There are 360 degree feedback opportunities from both direct staff reports and the board of directors.
The annual performance plan doesn’t just look at “quantitative” success (e.g. fundraising goals achieve, membership targets hit, etc), but it also finds a way to blend into the evaluation “how the executive director” does their job. Do they use scorched earth tactics to get results (which will bite them later down the road) or do they do a nice job using best practices (which might not immediately translate into results but might pay big dividends down the road).
The year-end evaluation doesn’t have any surprises because it is based on the exact performance plan handed to the executive director 12-months earlier.
Just like the performance plan development process, the year-end evaluation starts with the executive director doing a self-evaluation. The HR committee makes adjustments and seeks input from the entire board.
The question of who sits down with the executive director and conveys the evaluation results rarely looks the same from organization to organization. I’ve oftentimes seen the board president do it, but I’ve seen the HR committee chair also do it almost as often. I’ve seen it done in a committee setting (but I must admit that it looked like someone was getting ganged up on). I think the board should recruit anyone they like as long as that person: 1) has a good working relationship with the executive director and 2) has a track record of having successfully done employee evaluations (e.g. they have some HR acumen).
The year-end evaluation is always signed by the executive director, and a board volunteer personally witnesses it being deposited into the employee folder.

I have always tried to live my life according to this simple HR rule:

If anyone is surprised throughout this process, then it wasn’t done correctly and there needs to be some serious changes heading into next year.

I am a firm believer that the annual performance plan and year-end evaluation of the executive director is one of the biggest keys to organizational success. If done right, everyone knows far in advance what is expected of them. If done right, there are no surprises and usually very little emotion in the process. If done right, everyone is on the same page and the organization is powered strongly into the future with everyone’s sights set on visionary goals and performance indicators.

So, how does your organization evaluate its executive director? Are there best practices that you think I missed? Please use the comment box below so we can all learn from each other.

I hope you agree that today’s “bowl of porridge” compared to Monday and Tuesday’s posts tasted “just right”. 😉

Here’s to your health!

Goldilocks and the three board members: Part 2

December 6, 2011 DonorDreams Board development, Fundraising, resource development

Yesterday, my post titled “Goldilocks and the three board members” talked about a very cold bowl of porridge that involves non-profit boards who fail to evaluate their executive director every year. In doing so, they set their agency up for failure, liability and <gulp> perhaps even personal liability if the D & O Insurance carrier deems coverage null and void because the board failed to make a “good faith effort” to carry out its fiduciary responsibilities.

Today, I would like to talk about that VERY HOT bowl of porridge. This, of course, is when a board goes way overboard with the annual performance plan and year-end evaluation.

In this scenario, the board president thinks they “own” the organization and take their leadership position way too seriously. They decide that their time at the helm of the ship will go down in the history books as the “Golden Age” of your non-profit organization. They see the executive director as a “direct report” and use the performance plan and year-end evaluation processes to micro-manage OR change behavior of the person occupying the executive director’s chair OR drive the executive director screaming from the room (so either they or a friend of theirs can take over).

If this seems far-fetched, please trust me when I tell you I’ve seen it happen more often than I care to admit.

It is typically true in my experience that the board member who is being very aggressive usually has some very legitimate issues. However, their aggressive approach makes them look like an egomaniac or a big jerk. Sadly, those issues never get dealt with because the focus becomes personal rather than organizational. As a result, the organization and the clients it serves end up the big loser.

The interesting thing I’ve seen is how the other board members in the room deal with this individual. The group usually tries to “pacify” and give them total authority to do whatever they want with the executive director’s performance plan or year-end review.

This “accommodating move” by the board is meant to shut the instigator up, but it never seems to work out that way. The annual performance plan and year-end evaluation resemble something straight out of a carnival fun house with those weird mirrors. Annual performance objectives turn out unmeasurable and read something like this:

Improve staff morale
Be a leader in the community
Move all of our accreditation scores up one level

It looks and feels really muscular and accountable, but when you peel the layers of the onion back nothing makes any sense. How do you measure improved staff morale? Is it realistic to focus on all accreditation categories (even the ones you’re already doing well in)? What is a leader and how do you determine that?

Next thing you know everything feels subjective. Feelings get hurt. Emotions run high. And the board volunteers who thought they solved the problem by “brushing off” the loud squeaky wheel in the board room, find themselves in a much worse situation. It always turns into a trust issue between the board and their executive director. However, it sometimes turns into impending legal action involving things like: harassment, hostile work environment, or retaliation.

Trust me when I say the really hot dish of porridge is not the solution. Please tune in tomorrow, and we’ll talk about what a normal situation might look like.

Have you ever been involved in a situation where one board member is really “hot to trot” about the annual performance plan or year-end evaluation for the executive director? Have you ever seen it turn out OK? Do you have any examples of just “horrible” performance plan objectives that just didn’t make sense?

Please share . . . we can all learn from each other.

Here’s to your health!

Non-profits and Sunshine Laws?

December 1, 2011 DonorDreams Board development, resource development

Have you ever participated in an interesting conversation that inspired you enough to go do some research? Last night I had one of those moments, and what I found was so interesting I just had to share it with you this morning.

So, last night I was out enjoying a nice dinner with a non-profit board volunteer when the conversation turned to the subject of board meetings and how the local newspaper covers their agency.

He said, “Erik, the problem with making difficult discussions in the board room is that we’re subject to the Open Meetings Act.”

I said, “Really? I don’t think so. The Open Meetings Act is aimed primarily at government and public institutions.”

He responded with, “Erik, with as much government money as our agency takes, we are covered by this law and have to let the public and press into our meetings.”

If you know me well, then you know that not knowing an answer to something like this just drives me crazy. So, when I got back to my hotel room, I just popped open Google and started digging.

Ah ha! The first thing I found validated my point of view. The Illinois Open Meetings Act specifically exempts non-profit organizations. Click here to read more.

However, as with most things in life, nothing is simple or that clear cut. The next thing I found online was from Ann Taylor Schwing. She provided a dizzying number of bullet points pointing to various numbers of possible scenarios when the Open Meetings Act might extend beyond government entities and into board rooms of private organizations.

Click here to read more and see if your agency might fit into some these exceptions. After I consumed Ann’s work, my head started spinning and went into overdrive. For example:

One of the exceptions that Ann points out is: “whether the functions performed by the private entity would otherwise be performed by a public body, or were performed by the public body before the creation of the private entity“. Well, this certainly should give many agency’s a moment to pause and consider.
Another of the exceptions Ann highlights is: “the extent to which public entities may control the entity in question and the extent to which the entity is autonomous“. This got me to start counting the number of non-profits in my hometown who were recently quoted in the newspaper as saying, “If my city funding gets cut, we’re going to end up closing our doors.” As the Church Lady used to say on Saturday Night Live, “Well now. Isn’t THAT interesting?”

OK, you’re probably wondering what all this means and if it necessitates any action on your part. Here are just a few of my thoughts:

I would click the aforementioned links and do some research. No one wants to be surprised by a newspaper report or a disgruntled donor or client who demands access to your board room. I like to live by the general rule that “Prior Proper Preparation Prevents Piss Poor Performance”. 🙂
If the second bullet point sounds like it might describe your agency (e.g. your agency is so reliant on government money and your ‘independence’ is compromised), then you should engaging board members in a discussion around whether or not this is OK with them and what to do about it. After all, this is a quintessential “board governance” issue that the law calls on them to wrestle with. Right?
There is a bigger picture issue here as it pertains to non-profit transparency. You might want to start engaging board volunteers in a discussion around whether or not opening your board meetings to the public (e.g. donors, clients, neighbors, etc) is a good idea. And if it is, then how do you function in that public space and still get sensitive board business accomplished.

Some of you are probably thinking “Erik, are you crazy?” Well, maybe I am, but ask yourself this: “do donor have a right to attend governance meetings as an investor in your organization?” More to the point, I’ve seen some non-profit organizations model themselves after publicly traded for-profit organizations by hosting an annual meeting that is open to the public and is seen as a stewardship opportunity for donors.

Does your agency host an annual meeting that is open to donors and the public? If so, please tell us what it looks like and what is discussed in the comment box below. Has your agency ever been pressured by the press or the public about the Open Meetings Act? If so, please share with us what happened.

Come on folks! We can all learn from each other. Please take a moment to weigh-in.

Here’s to your health!