Back to non-profit board basics: Fiduciary Responsibility

fiduciaryDani Robbins is the Founder & Principal Strategist at Non Profit Evolution located in Columbus, Ohio. I’ve invited my good friend and fellow non-profit consultant to the first Wednesday of each month about board development related topics. Dani also recently co-authored a book titled “Innovative Leadership Workbook for Nonprofit Executives” that you can find on Amazon.com. 

The book Governance as Leadership, by Richard P. Chait, William P. Ryan and Barbara E. Taylor, and the modes of governance contained within, changed the way I look at Board service and the capacity of Boards to move the needle of change in their communities.

Several recent blog posts have been dedicated to discussing how to move governing Boards from focusing primarily on the fiduciary mode toward becoming more strategic and generative. High functioning Boards manage in all three modes depending on the circumstances and the needs of the organizations, yet fiduciary is and must continue to be the foundation of Board governance.

As a quick reminder, those modes are as follows:

  • Fiduciary – the board is faithful to its mission, accountable for performance, and compliant with relevant laws and regulations. It exercises its legal responsibilities of oversight and stewardship.
  • Strategic – the board is responsible for strategic thinking and sets the organization’s priorities and course, and deploys resources accordingly.
  • Generative – the board’s work entails efforts to make sense of circumstances, to discover patterns and discern problems, and to make meaning of what’s happening.

Boards are made up of appointed community leaders who are collectively responsible for governing an organization. That includes:

  • Setting the Mission, Vision and Strategic Plan;
  • Hiring, Supporting and Evaluating the Executive Director;
  • Acting as the Fiduciary Responsible Agent,
  • Setting Policy and
  • Raising Money

Most of how that happens is at Board and committee meetings, which is really the point of today’s blog.

basicsThe minimum requirements to become a functioning governing Board operating in the fiduciary mode is this:

You must have a quorum at all Board meetings. The organization’s Code of Regulations (also called by-laws) will dictate the number of Board members required to be in the room to have a quorum; it is usually half or half plus one. When you do not have a quorum the Board will not legally be able to take action, which in addition to stymieing the organization’s capacity to function, will also be noted in your audit, and in turn will quickly become a concern for your funders.

Minutes must be taken at each meeting of the Board of Directors and approved at the following meeting. Those minutes should include who was in attendance (distinguish between Board and staff please), the approval of the prior meting minutes and the financial statements as well as any and all votes, including the complete motion that was made and by whom, who seconded and if it was a unanimous vote. Minutes should also include the name of any Board members who voted no as well as anyone who abstained. Only Board members can make motions. Staff can make recommendations but in most cases cannot vote.

Financial statements, including a profit and loss, variance against the budget and a balance statement must be presented, explained and voted upon at each meeting. The Treasurer, when presenting the financials, should review anything that is higher or lower than expected, and explain anything that is not immediately obvious. Board members should ask questions until they understand and are willing to have their name listed as voting yes in favor of accepting the financial statements as presented.

basics2Committee decisions should be presented by the Chair of the Committee (not by staff, other than occasionally by request of the Chair) and anything that requires a vote should be motioned by that Chair. As listed in a prior post the following need votes:

  • Any Policy – crisis communication and management, personnel, etc.
  • Past board meeting minutes;
  • Financial reports;
  • Agency Annual Budgets;
  • Plans – strategic, board development and/or resource development;
  • Changes to the strategic direction of the organization;
  • The hiring of an Executive Director;
  • Audits;
  • Campaigns;
  • Opening, closing or changing the signatures on bank accounts;
  • Changes to the mission or vision; and
  • Board Members and Officers being added, or renewed.

Board meetings should also include a report from the Executive Director (also called CEO). Any recommendations that are made must be motioned by a board member and should then follow the voting path outlined above.

Board Chair’s often make reports as well, yet do not make motions or vote themselves unless there is a tie to break.

The meeting ends with any old or new business.

There are myriad ways to move a Board from a strictly fiduciary Board toward a high functioning Board, but none can happen before a Board masters their fiduciary responsibility. Fiduciary responsibility is the price of admission to Board leadership, but it can’t end there. Strategic and generative leadership is what engages Board members and moves the needle for change in our communities. Isn’t that why we serve?

What’s been your experience? As always, I welcome your insight and experience.
dani sig

Carol Burnett’s advice to disengaged non-profit boards

carol burnettThe idea of engaging non-profit board volunteers is sometimes treated by thought-leaders as a simple idea; however, in reality it is really hard. A few days ago I had this conversation with a board volunteer, and he said something I found very profound. He said, “When one person is disengaged, it is as simple as challenging them to step-up and join the group. When a few people are leading and the rest of the group is disengaged, it is far easier for the few to step-back because that is the norm.”

Obvious? Yes! Did I know this before I heard it? Of course. But I had never heard it stated quite so succinctly.

During this conversation, he also related a great quote from a business consultant he recently heard speak at a conference. The quote was “If you can’t change your people, change your people.”  Upon hearing this, my mind first darted to Jim Collins, who famously talks about getting the right people on the bus and in the right seats.” Yet, surprisingly, my mind didn’t stay there.  The cosmic jukebox in my head started playing a song that I still can’t get out of my head. Click here or on the YouTube screen below and please join me in singing . . .

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjQuZCTLAv4]

Yeah, I think Carol Burnett gave some great advice to board development committees when she sang her iconic sign-off song.

Carol reminds us that time flies when you’re having fun. She says early in the song: “Seems we just get started and before you Know it
Comes the time we have to say, ‘So long’.” In this one simple sentence, I am reminded of the following truisms for the board development committee:

  • There is a beginning, middle and end to every board volunteer relationship.
  • It is the Board Development Committee’s responsibility to manage every aspect of that relationship during every step down that path.
  • In the beginning, expectations must be set or disengagement is almost inevitable (e.g. use job descriptions to recruit).
  • During every step of the way, year-end evaluation is essential in order to maintain engagement. These aren’t always “pat-on-the-back” meetings. Sometimes, committee members need to ask tough questions during evaluation meetings such as: “What can we do to get you more involved in our resource development program? Is there something we can do to help you feel more comfortable with your roles and responsibilities? Are you sure this opportunity is a good fit or would everyone be better served if you stepped off the board and joined a committee?
  • In the end, compassion and grace — like you hear in Carol’s voice — are the values that carry the day. Hopefully, the volunteer concludes that they’re ready to move along to tackle other opportunities related to your mission and organization. However, more oftentimes it is obvious to everyone except the board volunteer. Not only must the committee exercise compassion and grace, but they must be strong and do what needs to be done. Too often committee volunteers kick the can down the road, which creates problems for another day.

When the norm on the board is disengagement, I’ve too often seen a frustrated Board Development Committee take the discussion into the boardroom. Their intention is good. After all, they want to wake some people up and shake them from their sleepy disengaged slumber. However, I’ve never seen this strategy work. In fact, it always backfires in one of two ways:

  1. Tempers flare because it feels like finger-pointing and accusations are being made. 
  2. Committee members get frustrated because their “call to action” is met with a yawn of “disengagement”.

For me, it all comes back to that consultant’s quote that my friend shared with me: “If you can’t change your people, change your people.”  with a chaser of “I’m so glad we’ve had this time together.”

I believe taking this conversation into the boardroom is tantamount to the board development committee abdicating their responsibilities and giving up. I suggest the more direct option of one-on-one meetings with disengaged volunteers.

If you are looking for resources and more reading materials on the subject of volunteer management, board development, board engagement, and how to move board volunteers onto other opportunities, you may want to click on some of the following links:

What have you done or seen done when disengagement is the norm in the boardroom? Do you agree or disagree with my thoughts on individual meetings versus group discussion? Please scroll down and share your thoughts in the comment box. We can all learn from each other.

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

Setting attainable social media goals for your non-profit

social media plan1If there is one thing non-profits know about, it is goals. There are goals within the mission. There are fundraising goals. There are membership goals. Today, we are going to talk about setting goals for social media. If you want your organizations social media campaigns to be a success, setting attainable social media goals is key.

Start with a Baseline

Just like anything, you have to see where you are before setting goals for where you want to go.

Measuring success in social media can be a tricky thing. There are many tools to help you define metrics that can be good indicators of interaction. For example, Facebook gives you Insights, which can tell you which posts were successful and which ones were not based on how many people saw them, shared them or liked them. Google Analytics can tell you about how many people visit your website and how long they stay engaged on your site. This type of data is helpful when you’re setting a baseline.

I would also encourage you to look at things outside of traditional metrics to help you define success. For example, how many posts were made in a specific platform can help you form a more complete picture of where your organization currently stands.

Keep in mind, there may not be an easy way to get data for all of the social media networks you use and that’s okay. However, gathering a baseline of data can help you measure success as your organization’s social media plan grows.

Look at Your Data

social media plan2Take a look and see if you can spot any patterns. Here are a few questions you should ask yourself:

  • Are there posts that are super successful?
  • Are there posts that just seem to tank?
  • Do photos do better than text updates?
  • Do posts made at the beginning of the day tend to do better than those posted later in the day or vice versa?
  • Which social media networks are the most active?
  • Which social media networks are the most dormant?
  • Are posts containing a call to action more successful than those without?
  • Do posts with links tend to get users more engaged than those without?

The list could go on and on, but the point is to take a look and see what’s working and what’s not.

Looking at your data is important in the beginning stages of goal setting, during measuring a goal and once the goal timeline has passed. Getting in the habit of collecting and looking at data early, will help you out along the way.

Talk to Your Staff

Social media is a powerful tool for nonprofits. Due to its very low cost, it gives organizations a much louder voice to reach new members of the community and keep up-to-date with those who have been there since the beginning.

While there may be just one person in charge of posting things on social media networks, it is important to get the whole agency together when forming social media goals. Take the time to meet with your staff and talk about how social media can help them reach their own departmental goals. For example, the membership team might like to use social media to run a membership drive during the month of October.

Talking with staff early can help you plan out a specific campaign. Because you’ve taken the time to look at where your organization stands now, you’ll be better able to shape these conversations into what will be most successful for your agency.

Set Goals

social media plan3After establishing a baseline and taking the time to look at what works and what doesn’t, you are ready to take on social media goal setting. The following are a few tips for writing and monitoring goals:

  • When writing goals, make sure they are SMART (e.g. specific, measurable, action oriented, realistic/relevant, and time bound).
  • Make sure you have ways to capture data throughout the goal’s timeline.
  • Discuss and adjust your posts with your team along the way.
  • If a goal isn’t met, it doesn’t mean that it failed completely. Take the time to examine what barriers kept it from succeeding. Maybe the goal wasn’t a great goal in the first place. This can be a lesson to learn in and of itself.

What type of social media goals does your organization set? How to you keep track of your data? What challenges do you face when it comes to setting and meeting social media goals? Let us know in the comment section!
Marissa sig

A celebration of African American philanthropy

black history monthAh, yes. It is February 28th once again, which signifies the end of another successful Black History Month.  While on the treadmill this morning, I scratched my head and wondered how we got to the end of February so quickly. My mind also wandered back to an old training curriculum that I used to use that was titled “Changing with the Times: Adapting Fundraising to a New United States“.

I went back and dusted off this curriculum because there are a few tidbits I think are appropriate to share on this last day of Black History Month.

Institutions built

Racial stereotypes are so dehumanizing. I cannot tell you how many people I’ve talked to throughout my career who obviously view the African American community as “recipients” of philanthropy and not “participants”. You don’t need to look any further than the following organizations to understand how incorrect those stereotypes actually are:

  • Urban League
  • The African Methodist Episcopal Church
  • Tuskegee Institute

What do these three institutions have in common? They are the result of African American philanthropy, and this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Not just an Amen!

bill cosbyHere’s another racial stereotype for you. Throughout my career, I’ve met many people who assume that African Americans only support their churches when it comes to philanthropy. Again, this just isn’t true. According to a 2002 report published by the W. K. Kellogg Foundation, the following is a list of giving priorities for the African American community:

  1. Education
  2. Public Affairs / Social Benefit
  3. Children & Youth
  4. Arts & Culture
  5. Health
  6. Other
  7. Human Services
  8. Religion

Huh? Go figure. Religion came in behind the category labeled “Other”.

To help put this list in context, more than half of respondents said “education” was their highest priority compared to approximately 5% who said “religion”.

Not just Buffet and Gates

oprahTry playing this fun game with your friends. Ask them to close their eyes and blurt out the first name that comes to mind when you say the word “philanthropist”. I’ll bet that the most common responses will be Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, and even Donald Trump (gosh darn Celebrity Apprentice).

In reality, the African American community has (and had) more than its fair share of awesome philanthropists including:

  • Oprah Winfrey
  • Michael Jackson
  • Bill Cosby
  • Tom Joyner
  • Russell Simmons
  • Magic Johnson
  • Wyclef Jean

Did you know?

I thought it would be fun to end this post on a really positive note. So, I dug really deep in that old training curriculum for a few of those “OMG . . . I didn’t know that” type of factoids (most of which came from the Kellogg Foundation report):

  • “According to an analysis of IRS records by the Chronicle of Philanthropy, African Americans with $50,000+ income give a higher percentage of discretionary income than most Americans.”
  • “Most African Americans give to multiple causes and most giving is local (79%).”
  • “African American donors seem to forgo endowment building in favor of donating time and money to assist with more immediate community needs.”

Did anything here surprise you? Do you have any fun stories that you’d like to share on this final day of Black History Month? Do you have any special strategies or tactics in your written resource development plan focused on philanthropy and this community? Please scroll down and share your thoughts in the comment box below.

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

Government funding, charities and difficult questions

government fundingIn my hometown of Elgin, Illinois, we are gearing up for city council elections. There is a Primary Election tomorrow (February 26, 2013) to narrow the field for a two-year vacancy on the council, and the general election is April 9, 2013 where voters will fill the two-year vacancy as well as four additional four-year seats. A total of five seats are up for grabs, and 22 different people have their hat in the ring.

You’re probably asking: “What does any of this have anything to do with non-profit organizations or fundraising?”

As you can imagine, a race with those many people gets cluttered. Who stands for what? What are the issues of the day? Why are people running? In an effort to bring some clarity, The Daily Herald newspaper identified a few issues, talked to the candidates about those issues, and wrote stories about what they found. One of those stories is about the Elgin Symphony Orchestra (ESO) and its quest to restore its city funding.

I look at this local story and see bigger implications for the entire non-profit community nationwide. Increased pressure on government budgets in the upcoming years will transform how and where governments allocate money to non-profit agencies.

Accountability and sustainability

accountabilityIf you clicked the Daily Herald link above or this article from The Courier-News, then you know that one of the objections some folks have to funding the ESO is that they ran budget deficits for a few years and burned through some of their endowment during the economic downturn. This raises sustainability questions because no donor (regardless of whether they are an individual, corporation, foundation or governmental agency) wants to fund something that isn’t sustainable.

In this instance, the issue is evolving into an accountability question: “how can grant deliverables be designed to hold the ESO board and staff accountable to creating and implementing a sustainable business plan?

There also appears to be a community standard evolving out of this discussion where some council members don’t want to provide funding at levels that would be too high for an agency to easily replace if the city ever decided to pull its funding. Of course, this approach creates challenges because it is difficult to hold agencies to meaningful grant deliverables when the dollars at stake aren’t big enough to fund programming capable of generating community impact.

What does the future of government funding across the country hold? I suspect we’re on the path to:

  • fewer funding opportunities,
  • smaller allocations,
  • increased accountability,
  • greater demand for sustainability planning and increased organizational capacity, and
  • more transparency.

Who should get what?

allocationIt is a simple fact that government has less money to work with today than it did yesterday.

Ahhhhh. Do you remember the late-1990s and 2000s, when government appeared to have money and spread it around to a number of different charities?  I know that some of my non-profit friends fondly look back and proclaim: “Those were the days.”

With an economic slowdown and mounting debt problem, resources are getting tighter, which potentially means increased conflict over the question of: “Who should get what?

In the past, the City of Elgin used its Riverboat fund and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to support non-profit agencies that aligned with the city’s strategic priorities and direction. Here are a few examples:

  • PADS of Elgin funding helped the city with its homeless population.
  • Elgin Chamber of Commerce helped the city with economic development.
  • Boys & Girls Club of Elgin helped the city address issues such as juvenile crime, gang activity, childhood obesity, and supplemental educational opportunities.
  • Elgin Symphony Orchestra was an investment in the arts as well as an economic engine that brought consumers downtown to spend their entertainment dollars.
  • Downtown Neighborhood Association (DNA) was aimed at economic development and an attempt to focus downtown merchants on revitalizing the central business district.

In this new world of government funding, we are already starting to see two things:

  1. political candidates who are happy to turn these resource allocation issues into campaign issues (e.g. politicizing non-profit funding) and
  2. non-profit agencies taking their case for support very public as they compete for public dollars.

Outsourcing versus insourcing

outsource insourceBack when the government funding gravy train was running strong, I noticed that the case for support for government funding of non-profit organizations involved the idea of “outsourcing” with the silent case for support being it costs non-profits less to provide these services because:

  • non-profit agencies pay their employees smaller wages,
  • non-profit employees have fewer fringe benefits than public sector employees,
  • there are fewer unions operating in the non-profit sector than there are in the government sector, and
  • an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure (e.g. keeping kids out of gangs is cheaper than funding the problems created by gangs and crime).

Outsourcing was a conservative solution to questions involving the appropriate role of government and the size of government.

Now that municipal budgets are shrinking and public sector layoffs are occurring, I predict that the idea of “insourcing” could become a trend. City recreation departments will try doing more with at-risk kids. Police departments will employ more social workers to deal with domestic violence. The planning department will hire economic development specialists.

This money will come in part from what is clawed-back from non-profit organizations.

If I am wrong on this hunch, then I suspect that money will be used to fund other city priorities like potholes, capital projects, and core city services. If this is the case, then we’re about to all pay a lot more money to address things associated with social problems.

Is your non-profit organization taking in a lot of government money to fund your mission? Are you worried about the direction things seem to be heading? What are you doing (if anything) to make adjustments?

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

Bad cause related marketing is offensive

cause related1Have you ever been the victim of a bad cause related marketing promotion? If so, then perhaps you would agree with me that bad cause related marketing is offensive and even damaging to the non-profit industry. For this reason, the industry really needs to start policing itself and developing a set of commonly accepted best practices.

My story

On Saturday, I decided that I needed a new pair of glasses. So, I took a trip to the mall and walked into LensCrafters because it felt convenient. I saw the doctor. She poked around my eyes and dilated them. I picked out my frames and proceeded to check-out. During the process of ringing up the bill, we got to a point that sounded something like this:

  • Cashier: “Would you like to add $1.00 to your bill today to support a charity called OneSight?”
  • Me: “Ummmmmm, what is that?
  • Cashier: “It is a charity that helps poor people around the world who suffer from bad eyesight.”
  • Me: “Can you tell me anything else about the charity?
  • Cashier: “Ummmmmmm, no.”
  • Me: “Then no, I wouldn’t like to support that charity.”

My issue with this exchange

I understand that it is only one dollar, but as a donor don’t I deserve a better case for support than: “It is a charity that helps poor people around the world who suffer from bad eyesight.”?

Again, you’re probably thinking to yourself: “Come on, Erik. It is one dollar. You’re not going to get the song and dance that charities give you for larger ask amounts.”

Of course, you are right, but am I asking too much for something like:

  • A brochure sitting at the cash register that explains more about the charity.
  • In-store posters or displays explaining who this company’s charity of choice is and why it is their charity of choice?

Buyer beware!

cause related2So, I came home and decided to Google around to find a few answers about the charity I was asked to support at the LensCrafters cash register.

Here is what I found on the LensCrafters website:

Twenty-five years ago, LensCrafters founded the OneSight organization with one purpose in mind: To provide better sight for all—everything from free eyecare to eyewear to important research that will change how people see tomorrow.”

Perhaps, I am being cynical, but isn’t LensCrafters asking its customers to fund its charitable work?

Back in the day, I remember corporate America feeling the need to re-invest part of its annual profits back into the communities from where those profits came or into a charitable mission about which they felt strongly. Again, I might be off-base here, but it feels like today some companies are keeping their profits and asking their customers to fund their charitable work and then turning around and asking for customer loyalty because of all their good works.

I did go to Guidestar and snoop around OneSight’s 990 forms, which as you know can be like deciphering hieroglyphs at times.   From what I can tell, this organization raises very little money from more traditional resource development methods and gets most of its money from LensCrafters’ cause related marketing cash register program.

As a consumer, I believe I deserve a little transparency at the cash register if I am just being asked to essentially support a company’s charitable activities.

Is a brochure or display really asking too much?

Cause related marketing is here to stay

Cause related marketing is here to stay because it generates substantial revenue. It is an easy ask. After all, it is just one dollar, right? Come on. Isn’t it a small price for a concerned citizen and donor to pay so that they can feel good about doing something to feed a hungry person or give the gift of sight?

Call me old fashion, but this feels like lazy philanthropy, especially when companies can’t even be bothered to train their cashiers to answer a few questions or produce a brochure for distribution at the cash register.

If only there were best practices and some minimum standards that we could all agree upon.

Ummmm, wait! Perhaps, we have something . . .

My online friend, JoanneFritz, at about.com posted a great article titled “3 Cause-Related Marketing Trends That Matter to Nonprofits and Their Business Partners“. It is definitely worth taking a minute to click-through and read it.

Joanne ends her post with a call to action and includes a few good links for non-profit organizations that are searching for best practices.

Has your agency played around with any cause related marketing efforts? If so, what did you do? More importantly, what did you learn? Please share your thoughts in the comment box below. We can all learn from each other.

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

Your donors know when you’re lying

white lieWelcome to O.D. Fridays at DonorDreams blog. Every Friday for the foreseeable future we will be looking at posts from John Greco’s blog called “johnponders ~ about life at work, mostly” and applying his organizational development messages to the non-profit community.

In a post titled “My Son Knows When I’m Lying,” John talks about one study that claims that people lie two or three times every 10 minutes. He uses that study to transition into talking about “microexpressions” and how our faces betray us all of the time.

John’s blog post got me thinking about how many non-profit organizations lie to their donors.

OK . . . I’m sure some of you think I’m being harsh, but I don’t necessarily mean big lies that come with legal complications. Here are a few examples floating through my head:

  • Please join our board. It only involves coming to one meeting, once a month.”
  • We do a great job at measuring our outcomes and impact, which is how we know your contribution makes a huge difference.”
  • Yes, we’re going to miss our development director something fierce, but they left to pursue a once in lifetime opportunity.”
  • We doing a great job weathering the economic downturn. We are on a good fiscal footing.”

Little white lies. We tell donors these things all the time. In fact, the list goes on and on (but I certainly hope it isn’t anywhere close to the two to three lies every 10 minutes that John referenced in his blog post). We do this for any number of reasons including:

  • We don’t want to worry or concern our donors.
  • We fear that if they knew the truth, they’d stop donating to us.
  • A wise person once said, “If you like sausage, you don’t want to know how it is made.”   😉

With all of this being said, John’s blog post also got me thinking that about how donors probably see right through all of it. If this is true, then it begs the questions:

  • What do white lies do to our organizational credibility?
  • Do our microexpressions betray us enough to have an impact on donor retention rates?
  • Is there a better way to steward donors where we can avoid little white lies and be more transparent all the while cultivating a deeper sense of donor engagement?

I ask lots of questions today and offer no tips, tricks or solutions; however, I don’t think there are easy answers that I can offer you. Regardless, I suspect many of you have thoughts on this subject. How are you working hard at being more transparent and honest with your donors? What strategies and tactics do to you use? Please scroll down and share a quick thought or idea in the comment box below. We can all learn from each other.

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

Using SWOT for more than just strategic planning

swot1I’ve had SWOT on my mind a lot lately. For those of you who don’t know, this acronym is a planning term that stands for “Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunities-Threats“. It is an exercise you go through during the assessment phase of whatever planning process you’re undertaking. If used correctly, it should provide you with a platform upon which to build your goals, objectives and action plans. Unfortunately, I see too many organizations “going through the motions” and under-utilizing this very powerful tool.

Not just for strategic planning

SWOT gets used a lot in strategic planning projects, but I see very few people employing this tool when working on a:

  • board development plan
  • marketing plan
  • resource development plan
  • individual giving campaign plan
  • program plan
  • facilities maintenance plan
  • capital improvement plan
  • business plan

Generally speaking, a SWOT analysis tells you what your organization has going for it and against it. From this perspective, wouldn’t you want to know this before rolling up your sleeves and undertaking any project?

Scrambling the letters

swot2There seems to be a genuine misunderstanding about the letters in this acronym. In my experience, people get confused and only use this exercise to look internally at their own organization. In reality, the SWOT exercise is designed to look both internally and externally.

The “S” and “W” stand for “Strengths” and “Weaknesses”. At this point in the exercise, participants should be inwardly focused on the following questions (as it pertains to the project you’re thinking about undertaking):

  • What do we do well? 
  • What don’t we do so well?

The “O” and the “T” stand for “Opportunities” and “Threats”. At this point in the exercise, participants should be externally focused on the following questions (as it pertains to the project you’re thinking about undertaking):

  • What’s happening or about to happen outside of our organization (or your department) that we can take advantage of to help make this project successful?
  • What’s happening or about to happen outside of our organization (or your department) that we should be concerned about because it could negatively impact the success of this project?

In my experience, too many people don’t want to use the “O” and “T” to look external. For whatever reason, they like to remain focused internally and they conflate strengths and opportunities as well as weaknesses and threats.

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen a project run aground because of external factors that weren’t given any serious consideration during the planning process.

You want an example?  Here you go . . .

Non-profit ABC decides to plan and implement an annual campaign pledge drive. They put together their campaign plan and their focus is 100% internal (e.g. staffing, volunteers, materials, reporting, systems, etc). They launch the campaign and quickly find out that donors (aka an external audience) don’t support the campaign for any number of reasons (e.g. not enough cultivation, not enough stewardship, etc).

Not following through

swot3One of the biggest mistakes I see when it comes to using a SWOT exercise is not following through and using the analysis. This happens when participants do the good work in assessing their internal strengths and weaknesses and the external opportunities and threats and then stop right there.

At the end of any good SWOT exercise, the following questions need to be asked as you pivot toward goal setting:

  • What strengths will help us implement this project?
  • Are there specific strengths we should build our plan around?
  • Which organizational weaknesses pose challenges to our plan?
  • Should we build things into the plan that help us fix our weaknesses?
  • If fixing our weaknesses isn’t realistic, are there things we should build into the plan to help us compensate for our weaknesses?
  • Are there external opportunities we need to take advantage of to help us achieve what we want to achieve (e.g. low hanging fruit)?
  • Are there external threats (e.g. icebergs in the water) that we should try to account for in the plan?

SWOT just for the sake of doing SWOT is meaningless. The information and insights you gain from this powerful exercise should be used as a springboard into goal setting conversations. These questions can act as a lens by which you look at your “vision” and brainstorm the goals for accomplishing your vision. You can do the same thing when pivoting toward development of objectives as well as when you finally pivot towards action planning. In each of these cases, SWOT acts as a lens by which you frame the next stage of the planning process and keep things real.

My simple suggestion is . . . get in the habit of using SWOT before tackling any large project and use this tool to its fullest extent. Doing so improves your planning process and increases the likelihood of future success.

Has you organization ever used SWOT for anything other than strategic planning? If so, how did it work for you? Please scroll down and share your experience in the comment box below. We can all learn from each other.

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

Donor retention in two easy steps

hole in bucketLast week I spent an hour on the phone with Jay Love, the founder and CEO of Bloomerang, which is the new online donor management and retention service. Jay is the same guy who brought eTapestry to the non-profit industry before selling it to Blackbaud a few years ago.  It was during the product demonstration with Jay that I had the following thoughts:

  • Donor retention is a huge issue that is killing too many fundraising programs.
  • There are tons of tools and best practices available for those wanting to tackle this problem.
  • The root problem contributing to the donor retention epidemic is likely lack of resources and time for most non-profit organizations.
  • The solution doesn’t have to be complicated. In fact, simple solutions are probably the most sustainable.

Let’s take a few minutes to flesh out a few of these thoughts.

Donor turnover is an epidemic

donor retention1Allyson Kapin at frogloop blog did a nice job of capturing this issue and included an awesome infographic from Bloomerang in her post titled “Strategies to Increase Nonprofit Donor Retention Rates“.

  • Non-profit donor retention rates currently stand at 41%.
  • The turnover rate is getting worse not better.
  • Our for-profit cousins do a substantially better job with customer retention. Their retention rate is 94%.
  • Non-profits seem to do better with retaining larger donors than smaller donors.

The problem is likely rooted in the non-profit sector’s short-term view when it comes to revenue generation. So, we over-invest in cultivating new donors and under-invest in stewarding existing donors. When we do invest in stewardship activities, it is focused on larger donors and not the base of our giving pyramid — smaller donors.

Best practices and tools

donor centered fundraising book coverPenelope Burk tells us in her book Donor Centered Fundraising that donor retention is as simple as:

  1. Thanking donors promptly. Being enthusiastic. Being personal.
  2. Circle back around to donors and show them that you’re using their contribution in the manner that you told them you would when you originally solicited the contribution.
  3. Circle back around again and tell donors what impact / outcome their charitable had with your clients and throughout the community.

Of course, the devil is in the details. I believe it is HOW you go about accomplishing these three simple principles where people get tied in knots and lose their way.

Consider this list of donor retention tools and communication opportunities:

  • There are countless donor management services and products (e.g. Blommerang, eTapestry, Results Plus, Raisers Edge, etc).
  • There are countless social media tools (e.g. Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, LinkedIn, Constant Contact, etc).
  • There are paper newsletters and eNewsletters.
  • Annual reports
  • Impact reports
  • Annual meetings and town hall meetings
  • Mailings and phone calls
  • Personal visits

In fact, Penelope Burk spends a number of pages in her book talking about what the donors who she surveyed like and dislike.

Back to basics

donor solicitorIf there is one thing I know about the vast majority of non-profit organization, it is that they are busy and overwhelmed. Looking at the donor retention statistics and the long list of remedies only adds more fuel to that fire.

So, it makes sense to simply.

If you’re a small non-profit organization and want to improve your donor retention rate, do the following two things:

  1. Set aside one afternoon every month to call donors who made a contribution in the last four weeks. Get through as many as you can. Make sure you are enthusiastic about their gift and generally tell them how you plan on putting their gift to work. Ask them how they would like you to communicate with them in the future (e.g. newsletter, eNews, snail mail letters, etc), and make sure you follow-through on your promise.
  2. Set aside enough time in your weekly schedule to sit down with one of your top individual donors every week. Share a cup of coffee or buy them lunch. It doesn’t matter. While you have a little bit of their time, casually share success stories. Tell them that those successes wouldn’t have been possible without their help and generosity. Do this once a week and you will meet with your Top 50 individual donors over the course of a calendar year.

I have worked in small non-profit organizations. Doing these two things is not unrealistic for an executive director or fundraising professional.

What is your agency doing to stem the rising tide of donor turnover? Please use the comment box below to share your thoughts. We can all learn from each other.

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

Lessons to be learned from Applebee’s social media fiasco

applebees receiptThe news story might be a few weeks old, but the lessons to be learned from it are still valid. Let’s take a look at what non-profit organizations can learn from the Applebee’s Social Media Fiasco.

The story goes like this. A waitress waited on a table with a large party seated at it, and an 18% gratuity was automatically added to the bill. This is common practice when it comes to dining out at many restaurants. The patron, a pastor, wrote on the receipt, “I give God 10%, why should I give you 18%?” and scratched out the tip. The waitress’ friend found this insulting and comical. So, she took a photo and posted it to the social network, Reddit.

Her post, of course, received a lot of negative comments and took the internet by storm. As a result, the employee who posted the receipt to Reddit was fired.

The lesson comes in is how Applebee’s responded to the situation. Applebee’s decided to post the following on their Facebook page:

“We wish this situation hadn’t happened. Our Guests’ personal information – including their meal check – is private, and neither Applebee’s nor its franchisees have a right to share this information publicly. We value our Guests’ trust above all else. Our franchisee has apologized to the Guest and has taken disciplinary action with the Team Member for violating their Guest’s right to privacy.”

reactive_proactiveNowhere in this post, did Applebee’s address the concerns of the public that had been commenting on the post. Nowhere did they address the voices of numerous other customers who were taking sides with the server who attended to the pastor’s table. This post just added fuel to a fire that was already raging.

Furthermore, in an attempt to respond to each individual comment on Facebook, Applebee’s copy and pasted the same message over and over again. This again, did not help the situation. It just continued to make things worse.

Things happen, but in this day and age it is naïve to think that things happen without anyone watching.  This situation brings to light the need to:

  • have a person dedicated to watching what is said about your organization everywhere on the internet,
  • responding to things when they happen, and
  • realizing when a non-response is the best response.

People like to feel like they are being heard. While the message might be the same to each person who posts a comment, taking the time to individualize the message or change the wording a bit makes all the difference. Keep in mind, responding to everyone individually might not be the best move for your organization. Making one blanket, detailed statement that addresses the majority of concerns, might be all that is needed to stop bad word of mouth.

Non-profit agencies don’t always have the money or the time to have a person dedicated to being the social media eyes and ears of their organization. So, what can be done instead? At least set up a Google Alert that notifies you when your agency is mentioned on the internet. Then you can decide if a response is needed.

If you cannot afford to have a person dedicated to watching what is happening on the internet full time, someone in the PR department might be able to take on some social media responsibilities here and there. Remember, you do not have to be involved in all social media networks. Find the one that is right for you and control your message there. When things happen, think about your response in a strategic manner with your whole team before responding quickly just to respond.

It’s been said, that it’s not what happens that matters, it’s how you react to it. The same rings true in social media. When things happen, take into account how your response is going to be received and decide if it is needed at all.

Has your organization faced a social media fiasco? What did you learn? If you want to share your story, leave a comment below, we’d love to hear from you!
Marissa sig