Category Archives: non-profit

How is Your Organization’s Fiscal Equilibrium?

This is the first post in a series of three on Organizational Equilibrium, written by Non-Profit Consultant Derek Link.

In the present economy, many non-profit organizations would probably say their fiscal equilibrium is a bit off center. Some might even say they’re wobbling like a top spinning slowly down and dangerously out of balance.

If ever there was a time for your fiscal feedback loops to be utilized and re-evaluated, this is probably it. If your fiscal stool had only one leg, you’re probably already on the floor or headed that direction. Sources of funding have dried up rapidly as discretionary income of individuals and organizations has slowed to a trickle.

A wise fiscal plan for a non-profit does not count on one source of income. It’s wise to cultivate multiple sources including grants, donors, planned giving, annual campaigns, special events, merchandising, etc. Weaving together a sustainable intelligent fund raising design creates equilibrium, and paying attention to feedback loops – like timely statistics on income from all sources – can give you valuable information to ensure that efforts to raise money are targeted toward all possible sources.

Diversification of fund raising is crucial at times when donors are struggling (as they are now), and government is giving away lots of grants (as they are now). It’s wise to have strategies for both donor appeals and grant writing. Paying attention to feedback and planning ahead can give your organization something to grab onto when traditional fund raising methods are slow or closed completely.

Another key to financial stability is to have an audit conducted each year by an accountant who knows the non-profit world and can offer sound advice and feedback. This feedback loop not only provides an external review of your fiscal practices, it also adds an important level of accountability.

So in order to stabilize your fiscal equilibrium pay attention to feedback you’re getting right now. There may be changes and adaptations your organization needs to make in order to maximize your organization’s income during this turbulent economic time. By paying attention to your fiscal feedback loops, your organization can survive and thrive while less agile organizations fold up their tent and move along.

——–

Parts 2 (How is Your Organization’s Governance Equilibrium?) and 3 (How is Your Organization’s Operational Equilibrium?) of this series will be posted on February 18th and 20th.

Is Your Non-Profit a "Closed" Organization?

Non-profit Consultant, Derek Link, offers some thoughts on the dangers of “closed” organizations:

One of the worst things a non-profit organization can do is to become a “closed” organization. First I’ll define what that means to me and then I’ll give you an example of how it looks in action. A closed organization is one that has become inbred and sort of nepotistic. Only familiar people are invited into the decision-making. The Board hasn’t changed in years or at the very least never includes anyone with a different viewpoint or who is strong enough to rock the boat. A closed organization can’t grow because it fears the innovation, requirements, and new attachments that growth requires.

So what does this look like in practice? I’ve seen a few organizational symptoms lately. Last week I was reviewing a nonprofit organization’s strategic plan. The plan looked fairly detailed at first blush, there were lots of items, neatly numbered, and there were various categories of things that the organization wanted to take action on. The problem was that all of the categories were things they already did and there was nothing new. The second problem was that the sub-items were all so general that it wasn’t possible to know what actions should be taken to actually accomplish anything. It was a 3 year plan that led nowhere. To make matters worse, it was a 3 year plan that ended last year and the action of the board was to re-authorize the same plan for the next three years! Obviously that Board is not including any new people and certainly not anyone who would question the status quo in order to propel the mission forward.

The second example is a non-profit that I have a lot of experience with because I sometimes volunteer there. Like most non-profits, the organization is always short of money but that is mostly because they don’t bring in any expertise in fund raising to implement any sort of organized fund raising plan. It’s always put this fire out then put that one out.

The leadership hasn’t changed over time and new members to the Board have not been added from outside the immediate circle of friends. In fact, I attended a Board meeting once when two new people happened to come in from the outside. They proposed that the strategy for fund raising wasn’t very good and they were actually shouted at by the Board President. These were people with concrete experience raising money so their concerns were based on real knowledge, but the closed system isn’t open to new ideas. The “interlopers” were driven away before the Board president’s veins had even receded from his forehead!

One symptom of a closed system is a Board that only cracks open the Board room door when it is in danger of fiscal collapse. Closed systems are locked in a death spiral that may be slow or fast, or it may simply spin in one place for eternity when the Board is wealthy enough. The Board members of the arts organization I volunteer with are wonderfully generous with their own money and time, but they aren’t wealthy. They periodically publish pleas for funding that are couched as dire warnings to the community that they are in immanent danger of going under financially. The appearance they give is that the only time anyone new is invited to participate is when they need money in times of crisis. That comes across as desperate and irksome to people who would enjoy being involved if a sincere invitation to do so were ever proffered.

So long as your organization has a solid funding stream then it may survive being a closed system, but as soon as that funding stream is compromised, it can come down like a house of cards. In the current economic environment, even some foundations with large endowments that have traditionally been closed systems are questioning the feasibility of remaining as such.

Join Derek for our BlogTalkRadio Tips from the Grant Goddess show this week (Friday, 3 p.m., PST).  He’ll be talking about hjow to tell if your organization is a closed system, and what you can do about it. If you miss the live show, you can listen to the recording on demand.

Is Your Non-Profit a "Closed" Organization?

Non-profit Consultant, Derek Link, offers some thoughts on the dangers of “closed” organizations:

One of the worst things a non-profit organization can do is to become a “closed” organization. First I’ll define what that means to me and then I’ll give you an example of how it looks in action. A closed organization is one that has become inbred and sort of nepotistic. Only familiar people are invited into the decision-making. The Board hasn’t changed in years or at the very least never includes anyone with a different viewpoint or who is strong enough to rock the boat. A closed organization can’t grow because it fears the innovation, requirements, and new attachments that growth requires.

So what does this look like in practice? I’ve seen a few organizational symptoms lately. Last week I was reviewing a nonprofit organization’s strategic plan. The plan looked fairly detailed at first blush, there were lots of items, neatly numbered, and there were various categories of things that the organization wanted to take action on. The problem was that all of the categories were things they already did and there was nothing new. The second problem was that the sub-items were all so general that it wasn’t possible to know what actions should be taken to actually accomplish anything. It was a 3 year plan that led nowhere. To make matters worse, it was a 3 year plan that ended last year and the action of the board was to re-authorize the same plan for the next three years! Obviously that Board is not including any new people and certainly not anyone who would question the status quo in order to propel the mission forward.

The second example is a non-profit that I have a lot of experience with because I sometimes volunteer there. Like most non-profits, the organization is always short of money but that is mostly because they don’t bring in any expertise in fund raising to implement any sort of organized fund raising plan. It’s always put this fire out then put that one out.

The leadership hasn’t changed over time and new members to the Board have not been added from outside the immediate circle of friends. In fact, I attended a Board meeting once when two new people happened to come in from the outside. They proposed that the strategy for fund raising wasn’t very good and they were actually shouted at by the Board President. These were people with concrete experience raising money so their concerns were based on real knowledge, but the closed system isn’t open to new ideas. The “interlopers” were driven away before the Board president’s veins had even receded from his forehead!

One symptom of a closed system is a Board that only cracks open the Board room door when it is in danger of fiscal collapse. Closed systems are locked in a death spiral that may be slow or fast, or it may simply spin in one place for eternity when the Board is wealthy enough. The Board members of the arts organization I volunteer with are wonderfully generous with their own money and time, but they aren’t wealthy. They periodically publish pleas for funding that are couched as dire warnings to the community that they are in immanent danger of going under financially. The appearance they give is that the only time anyone new is invited to participate is when they need money in times of crisis. That comes across as desperate and irksome to people who would enjoy being involved if a sincere invitation to do so were ever proffered.

So long as your organization has a solid funding stream then it may survive being a closed system, but as soon as that funding stream is compromised, it can come down like a house of cards. In the current economic environment, even some foundations with large endowments that have traditionally been closed systems are questioning the feasibility of remaining as such.

Join Derek for our BlogTalkRadio Tips from the Grant Goddess show this week (Friday, 3 p.m., PST).  He’ll be talking about hjow to tell if your organization is a closed system, and what you can do about it. If you miss the live show, you can listen to the recording on demand.

Published by Creative Resources & Research http://grantgoddess.com

The Importance of Networking

Non-profit Consultant, Derek Link, shares some good strategies for effective networking:

I am not by nature a super-social person. Not that I suffer from any social-anxiety dysfunction or anything but I tend to be an inward-thinking person who tends to process and do critical thinking internally. I like to process first, express second. Many people process verbally first and unlike me, they love to be in social settings where they can process to their heart’s delight.

If you’re more like me, you need to force yourself to network. It’s important because most business connections are made this way. This places you in the less-than-comfortable position of meeting, greeting, shaking hands, and spending time with those verbal processors. The thing is, networking effectively is mission-critical if you’re in business – and this includes those of you in business as non-profit or school administrators. You must be out there, be known, pass out cards, do some verbal processing; if you don’t, you won’t be given any contracts that play to your internal processing strengths.

  • Practice being a “there you are” person, rather than a “here I am” person. Force yourself to make eye contact and make the first approach. Many people feel just as fearful as you do about making the first contact and they’ll be relieved that someone has taken the pressure off of them by making the contact.
  • Avoid alcohol in places where you are networking. If you’re kind of an internal processor anyway, you may find that drinking isn’t helping you open up, at least, not in ways that are helpful to building business connections.
  • Be sure to carry lots of cards with you! These can help spur conversation about your business. I can be bad about this so I am constantly putting a couple into my wallet since it’s everywhere I am except the shower
  • Take a verbal processor with you and dovetail off his or her natural gift.
  • Work on using some active listening techniques. Respond to what is being discussed with clarifying questions or summary statements. This helps keep your mind in the conversation and truly creates a connection to the other person.
  • Keep moving to contact as many people in the event as possible. Don’t stay in a mini-conference with one or two people, or with people you already know. Work the room!
  • You don’t need to talk only about business, networking can also be social, so if something cool is happening your life it’s OK to share it. remember, the whole point of networking is to establish relationships.

So don’t hesitate to find those opportunities to get out and shake hands. You want to be memorable so put on your best duds, polish that smile, and walk in the room with the “there you are!” attitude.

The Importance of Networking

Non-profit Consultant, Derek Link, shares some good strategies for effective networking:

I am not by nature a super-social person. Not that I suffer from any social-anxiety dysfunction or anything but I tend to be an inward-thinking person who tends to process and do critical thinking internally. I like to process first, express second. Many people process verbally first and unlike me, they love to be in social settings where they can process to their heart’s delight.

If you’re more like me, you need to force yourself to network. It’s important because most business connections are made this way. This places you in the less-than-comfortable position of meeting, greeting, shaking hands, and spending time with those verbal processors. The thing is, networking effectively is mission-critical if you’re in business – and this includes those of you in business as non-profit or school administrators. You must be out there, be known, pass out cards, do some verbal processing; if you don’t, you won’t be given any contracts that play to your internal processing strengths.

  • Practice being a “there you are” person, rather than a “here I am” person. Force yourself to make eye contact and make the first approach. Many people feel just as fearful as you do about making the first contact and they’ll be relieved that someone has taken the pressure off of them by making the contact.
  • Avoid alcohol in places where you are networking. If you’re kind of an internal processor anyway, you may find that drinking isn’t helping you open up, at least, not in ways that are helpful to building business connections.
  • Be sure to carry lots of cards with you! These can help spur conversation about your business. I can be bad about this so I am constantly putting a couple into my wallet since it’s everywhere I am except the shower
  • Take a verbal processor with you and dovetail off his or her natural gift.
  • Work on using some active listening techniques. Respond to what is being discussed with clarifying questions or summary statements. This helps keep your mind in the conversation and truly creates a connection to the other person.
  • Keep moving to contact as many people in the event as possible. Don’t stay in a mini-conference with one or two people, or with people you already know. Work the room!
  • You don’t need to talk only about business, networking can also be social, so if something cool is happening your life it’s OK to share it. remember, the whole point of networking is to establish relationships.

So don’t hesitate to find those opportunities to get out and shake hands. You want to be memorable so put on your best duds, polish that smile, and walk in the room with the “there you are!” attitude.

Published by Creative Resources & Research http://grantgoddess.com

Does Philanthropy Serve the Common Good?

Non-profit Consultant, Derek Link, shares some thoughts on philanthropy:

I love when I hear that a foundation is changing its priorities.It tells me that someone is paying attention, that the Board isn’t asleep at the wheel, and that the Executive Director is in a learning curve about the needs of the community they serve. Changing priorities tells me that a foundation may be avoiding the trap of entrenchment in some ideologically-static mission.

Michael Edwards recently wrote an article, “Philanthropy Needs a Major Overhaul to Better Serve the Common Good” in which he asserts that, “The best way to reinvent philanthropy is for ordinary people to get involved in a way that does not reinforce the unhealthy patterns of the past.”

I can see from grant research why he would make such an assertion because I see many foundations that give away lots of money, yet all of it goes to a specific political or religious cause. The question isn’t whether the recipients of the money are doing nice things with it, the civil society questions should be, “Are those the most important things to be doing?” and, “Should the government be giving tax breaks for giving money away when it merely represents maintenance of social inequalities or blatant promotion of personal bias?”

Social change must be driven by social needs but when the wealthy foundations are rewarded for doing nothing more than supporting programs for the wealthy as when donations are made to a senior center serving relatively well-to-do seniors, or the wealthy children who attend schools of a certain religion, the social responsibility a foundation assumes by accepting tax breaks is undermined.

The idea that foundations should be established for the public good is fundamental to civil society principles. But if a foundation refuses to change its mission even when more pressing concerns are evident in their community, one must question the motives and the relevance of their existence and whether our government should be granting tax exempt status for organizations that are nothing more than proponents of a class, race, religious, or political point of view.

Does Philanthropy Serve the Common Good?

Non-profit Consultant, Derek Link, shares some thoughts on philanthropy:

I love when I hear that a foundation is changing its priorities.It tells me that someone is paying attention, that the Board isn’t asleep at the wheel, and that the Executive Director is in a learning curve about the needs of the community they serve. Changing priorities tells me that a foundation may be avoiding the trap of entrenchment in some ideologically-static mission.

Michael Edwards recently wrote an article, “Philanthropy Needs a Major Overhaul to Better Serve the Common Good” in which he asserts that, “The best way to reinvent philanthropy is for ordinary people to get involved in a way that does not reinforce the unhealthy patterns of the past.”

I can see from grant research why he would make such an assertion because I see many foundations that give away lots of money, yet all of it goes to a specific political or religious cause. The question isn’t whether the recipients of the money are doing nice things with it, the civil society questions should be, “Are those the most important things to be doing?” and, “Should the government be giving tax breaks for giving money away when it merely represents maintenance of social inequalities or blatant promotion of personal bias?”

Social change must be driven by social needs but when the wealthy foundations are rewarded for doing nothing more than supporting programs for the wealthy as when donations are made to a senior center serving relatively well-to-do seniors, or the wealthy children who attend schools of a certain religion, the social responsibility a foundation assumes by accepting tax breaks is undermined.

The idea that foundations should be established for the public good is fundamental to civil society principles. But if a foundation refuses to change its mission even when more pressing concerns are evident in their community, one must question the motives and the relevance of their existence and whether our government should be granting tax exempt status for organizations that are nothing more than proponents of a class, race, religious, or political point of view.

Published by Creative Resources & Research http://grantgoddess.com

Grant Writing – A Romantic Misconception

By Derek Link, Non-Profit Consultant

The image of a warm fire crackling softly in the background, a golden retriever slumbering at his feet, perhaps even a hot cup of tea steaming beside the keyboard is the image of a grant writer’s days. No stress involved, just bucolic surroundings, creative narrative editing, just an aura of cerebral bliss, day-after-day.

Yeah, right. It’s more like a flue fire roaring, dog barking, cold forgotten teabag in a cup that was hot yesterday, piles of paper with scribbles and spotted with post-its, draft after red-edited draft scattered in loose piles on chairs and couches, and an impending deadline that is literally a deadline.

Grant writing, like most writing, can be romanticized beyond reality. Oh, there’s an art to it all right, but even art is mostly – as artists will tell you – about dogged determination and ongoing stubborn effort. Grant writing is all about striving with narrative to make it say what you want it to say in the way you want it to be said, and all within the confines of a page limit, a specific font size, and between margins of unbending width.

Grant writing is more akin to technical writing than to creative writing. Grant writing necessitates curbing your creative juices in order to stay on point and not stray off into irrelevant and space-stealing witticisms or flowery jibber-jabber. There is an element of creative writing to a grant because for the most part you’re writing about a program that does not exist yet, but effective grant narratives are mostly direct, expository copy in topic-specific, technical language.

I’ve had conversations with people about what I do and I tend to get this dreamy-eyed response from some of them. Their verbal response goes something like, “Oh, I’d LOVE to be a grant writer someday” as they mentally drift off to the study in fuzzy slippers. Their ignorance amuses me because I know the truth, but then I was there at one time myself.

Oh, don’t get me wrong. I am not masochistic and making a living writing grants as some form of monastic self-flagellation. I do enjoy it, but it is definitely a love-hate relationship. I love the challenge and hate the deadline. I love the research and hate the restrictions.I love the competition and hate losing. I love the fact that there is a financial reward for the client (and me). I do enjoy grant writing, but the romance was gone forever as soon as I got my first edit and response from my grant writing mentor.

In my pre-grant-writing-career fantasies I had imagined finishing a sparkling narrative, pulling the crisp paper from the typewriter with a flourish and placing it respectfully upon the finished stack, putting a match to my pipe and puffing happily whilst sipping my steaming Earl Gray as Skipper wagged in proper canine admiration.

Sadly, there’s always someone who’s going to inject reality and burst the bubble. In my case it was a short, slightly sarcastic, practical-joker who could brilliantly dissect my narratives and never apologize for the lack of anesthetic. Alas, most unrealistic romantic grant writing fantasies are bound to end that way.

Grant Writing – A Romantic Misconception

By Derek Link, Non-Profit Consultant

The image of a warm fire crackling softly in the background, a golden retriever slumbering at his feet, perhaps even a hot cup of tea steaming beside the keyboard is the image of a grant writer’s days. No stress involved, just bucolic surroundings, creative narrative editing, just an aura of cerebral bliss, day-after-day.

Yeah, right. It’s more like a flue fire roaring, dog barking, cold forgotten teabag in a cup that was hot yesterday, piles of paper with scribbles and spotted with post-its, draft after red-edited draft scattered in loose piles on chairs and couches, and an impending deadline that is literally a deadline.

Grant writing, like most writing, can be romanticized beyond reality. Oh, there’s an art to it all right, but even art is mostly – as artists will tell you – about dogged determination and ongoing stubborn effort. Grant writing is all about striving with narrative to make it say what you want it to say in the way you want it to be said, and all within the confines of a page limit, a specific font size, and between margins of unbending width.

Grant writing is more akin to technical writing than to creative writing. Grant writing necessitates curbing your creative juices in order to stay on point and not stray off into irrelevant and space-stealing witticisms or flowery jibber-jabber. There is an element of creative writing to a grant because for the most part you’re writing about a program that does not exist yet, but effective grant narratives are mostly direct, expository copy in topic-specific, technical language.

I’ve had conversations with people about what I do and I tend to get this dreamy-eyed response from some of them. Their verbal response goes something like, “Oh, I’d LOVE to be a grant writer someday” as they mentally drift off to the study in fuzzy slippers. Their ignorance amuses me because I know the truth, but then I was there at one time myself.

Oh, don’t get me wrong. I am not masochistic and making a living writing grants as some form of monastic self-flagellation. I do enjoy it, but it is definitely a love-hate relationship. I love the challenge and hate the deadline. I love the research and hate the restrictions.I love the competition and hate losing. I love the fact that there is a financial reward for the client (and me). I do enjoy grant writing, but the romance was gone forever as soon as I got my first edit and response from my grant writing mentor.

In my pre-grant-writing-career fantasies I had imagined finishing a sparkling narrative, pulling the crisp paper from the typewriter with a flourish and placing it respectfully upon the finished stack, putting a match to my pipe and puffing happily whilst sipping my steaming Earl Gray as Skipper wagged in proper canine admiration.

Sadly, there’s always someone who’s going to inject reality and burst the bubble. In my case it was a short, slightly sarcastic, practical-joker who could brilliantly dissect my narratives and never apologize for the lack of anesthetic. Alas, most unrealistic romantic grant writing fantasies are bound to end that way.

Published by Creative Resources & Research http://grantgoddess.com

Are You the Bear or the Salmon?

I just came back from a trip to the east coast for an evaluation conference. On the plane, there were a variety of videos played before and after the main movie.  One of them was a nature film about salmon swimming upstream to spawn and the challenges they face.  I was particularly interested in the bears.

The salmon were swimming upstream, struggling to make progress against the strong current, following an instinctual ritual that had been followed by millions of other salmon before. They kept swimming, regardless of what happened to the other fish in front of them – some made it, some were eaten. They continued to leap out of the water, persisting upstream through the rocky river, in spite of the danger of being snatched out of the air into a bear’s mouth.

 Some even adjusted their fishing strategy and started stepping on salmon to trap them before going after them with their strong jaws.

Lots of salmon died.  All the bears were fed.

The salmon just kept doing the same thing that millions had done before them.  No change in approach or tactic regardless of the risk.  Some made it, but the cost was high for those who didn’t. The bears assessed the situation, applied a strategy, and modified the approach if it didn’t work.

As a non-profit or school administrator, which are you – a bear or a salmon?