PhilanTopic

Most Popular PhilanTopic Posts of 2011

As we put the final touches on our special year-in-review issue and clear the decks for 2012, we thought it would be fun to look back at the most popular PhilanTopic posts of the year. Written by a diverse group of bloggers and covering a broad range of topics, here are the ten most popular posts of 2011.

• 'Don’t Call Us, We’ll Call You'
• Jumo: Get Grant, Do Good, Sell
• 7 Tips for Finding Stories in Your Organization
• Philanthropy and...Job Creation
• Steve Jobs and Occupy Wall Street: Two Ways to Disrupt Philanthropy
• Jumo-GOOD: The Future Is Now
• A 'Flip' Chat With...Amy Sample Ward, Membership Director, NTEN
• Why Measuring Impact Remains an Elusive Goal
• Christopher Doyle, Former Colleague and Friend (1982-2011)
• Sustainability: It Requires More Than Money (Pt. 1)

What were your favorite posts -- here on PhilanTopic or anywhere else, for that matter -- of the year? Inquiring minds want to know...

A to Z Survival Guide for Uncertain Times

(Michael Seltzer is a regular contributor to PhilanTopic. This post originally appeared on this blog in October 2008, shortly after the collapse of Lehman Brothers. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. Michael's last post was a Q&A with David Jones, president of the Community Service Society of New York.)

Each time the American economy has suffered a downturn or government has cut back on funding for social programs, the media has focused on how those of us on "Nonprofit Street" are being affected. Those of us running nonprofit organizations don't need newspapers to tell us how things are going or how our constituents are faring. Instead, we want to know what our colleagues are doing to address the financial challenges we each face.

The "A to Z Nonprofit Survival Guide for Uncertain Times" is compiled from my past writings and strategy recommendations I learned from grantees, clients, and fellow consultants. To all of you, I am grateful for your generosity and wisdom.

_____

Accentuate the positive
There's enough doom and gloom in the media and on Wall Street. The public doesn't want to hear how poorly nonprofits are doing; they want to know that nonprofit organizations will continue to be there for them.

Be bold
The pressure to scale back programs and to promise less is real. But it's important, when possible, to find new ways to provide value to clients, funders, and supporters.

Collaborate
In normal times, many nonprofit leaders view collaboration as the most unnatural of acts. These are not normal times. There is much to be gained, including cost savings and enhanced impact, by working more closely with others.

Deepen relationships (with elected officials, in particular)
Unfortunately, local, state, and federal governments will be forced to make cuts in their budgets as tax revenues decline. Be sure to make the case with your elected officials and their key staff for continued government funding of your organization.

Experiment
Look for opportunities to experiment and/or pilot small-scale initiatives. Such opportunities are likely to be a less expensive investment in change than grand, large-scale progams or initiatives.

Fundraise selectively
Good advice anytime, but especially in the current economic climate. Focus on strong, solid prospects rather than second-tier long shots. With corporate donors, be prepared to discuss non-cash ways the company can support your operations, including loaned executives, volunteer programs, the short-term loan of facilities, and other in-kind contributions.

Get rid of dead (board) wood
Tough times demand that all stakeholders roll up their sleeves and give generously of their "time, talent, and treasure." Board members who are unable and/or unwilling to pull their weight and contribute what they can to strengthen the organizations must (gently) be shown the door.

Help other organizations less well positioned than your own
It doesn't have to be with money; technical assistance, fundraising advice, even something as simple as words of encouragement can go a long way in a tough economic environment. At the end of the day, we're all in this together.

Invest in the future
Though you're likely to find that cost-cutting measures are unavoidable, it's equally important that you identify ways to create or expand your reserve funds. No one can predict the future, so the best advice is probably the old Scouts motto: "Be prepared."

Join your local or state association of nonprofits
Networking is not only helpful in times like these, it's essential. Local nonprofit associations provide a great meeting ground to exchange information and lessons learned with peers and colleagues in other organizations.

Keep informed of developments in your field
That means staying on top of your issues and looking for even better ways to do what you do. This is not the time to cut back on professional journals and magazine subscriptions.

Look to the future, not the past
Another way of saying, "Don't rest on your laurels." And if your organization is struggling, take comfort from the fact that, with creativity, hard work, and an optimistic outlook, things are likely to get better.

Mind the sweet spot
Don't just chase dollars. Identify your organization's "sweet spot" -- the intersection of its vision, mission, assets, and other strengths with the giving "impulses" of your supporters and stakeholders -- and make sure everything you do connects to it.

Never reinvent the wheel
No explanation necessary.

Open yourself and your organization to new ideas
If something has stopped working for you, it's probably time to change it. Open your mind to new ideas and new ways of doing things, and seek out the opinions of experts in your field.

Plan for uncertainty
To be a good steward of the resources that have been entrusted to you, you simply must forecast several different financial scenarios for your upcoming fiscal year. Be conservative in your revenue projections.

Quickly communicate bad news to your key supporters
Make sure your key internal and external stakeholders feel they are being kept apprised of major changes and developments affecting your organization. And whatever you do, do not let them learn bad news about your organization from the media.

Respect your stakeholders
You can expect to get a lot of tough questions from concerned stakeholders. The fact they are concerned is a positive for your organization. Don't squander it by giving false or misleading answers.

Share
Cost-saving measures such as sharing office space or pooling back-office functions must be considered in tough economic times. Many funders will be cutting back on administrative costs and will appreciate grantees' efforts to do the same.

Tell your story
Across the country, in practically every community, low-income families and individuals are the ones who will be most affected by the economic downturn. They are likely to turn, in growing numbers, to local nonprofit organizations for food assistance, child care, credit counseling, job retraining, legal assistance, and other services. Nonprofit leaders would be well-advised to collect the stories of the individuals and families they serve and share them with donors, supporters, and local media.

Upgrade your staff perks
Many nonprofits will be pressured to reduce headcount and/or to contract out some of their services. Such measures can hurt morale and reduce organizational effectiveness. It's important, therefore, for nonprofit leaders to find both material and non-material ways to express their appreciation for and solidarity with staff. Listen to their ideas and validate their concerns. They'll appreciate it and your organization will benefit.

Vision, vision, vision
In tough times, people tend to rally around organizations and leaders that project an air of confidence and optimisim. Franlkin D. Roosevelt warned about fearing "fear itself" in the depths of the Great Depression, and in the 1960s Lyndon Johnson rallied a shocked and racially polarized country around the notion of a "Great Society." For both men, language was a critical tool in helping to paint and convey a picture of better times to come. Nonprofits would be well-served to take a page out of their respective books.

Wear your values on your sleeve
In our sector, the most important assets are our values and the public's trust. Whether we express our values through our Web sites, marketing materials, or on a T-shirt, we should display and wear them proudly. And in no circumstance should we compromise our ethics or the integrity of our organizations or the sector.

eXhale
Remember: Most of us still have a lot to be grateful for.

Yield no ground as an authority in your field
In order to assert that authority, however, you have to stay informed (see K) and must communicate clearly.

Zero in on your core competencies
Identify what your organization does best and strive to be a leader and innovator in that area or space.

-- Michael Seltzer

The Foundation Center Turns 55!

(The following post was written by Inés Sucre, reference/outreach librarian at the Foundation Center-New York.)

Five years ago, when the Foundation Center celebrated its 50th anniversary, we published a nifty timeline that looked at the history of the center side by side with milestones in U.S. and world history. Take a look -- it's quite wonderful!

The idea of change can sometimes be over-hyped. Even so, the last five years do seem to have brought rapid shifts in the way the Foundation Center serves its mission. Maybe I'm wrong, but consider that…

Back then, in 2006, we didn't have any blogs, not one. Now look at us! The Foundation Center communicates through eight blogs, including the Nonprofit Literature Blog, the first of our blogs to launch; PhilanTopic, a blog of opinion and commentary that draws contributors from all over the country; and our field office/library blogs.

Back then, we didn't tweet -- no one did. But today we're tweeting from our offices in San Francisco and New York -- and lots of places in between, too, like Cleveland, Atlanta, and Washington, D.C. And our main Twitter feed (@fdncenter) has more than 15,000 followers, from all over the world!

Of course, foundations are tweeting and blogging as well. So Foundation Directory Online Professional now has a Social Media tab for feeds and links to all this great content.

Back then, we had one Web site -- foundationcenter.org, which I've always loved (even before I worked here). Now, in GrantSpace, we have a new site dedicated to nonprofit grantseekers, to forging an online community, and to offering a "a robust, accessible knowledge bank for the sector."

Back then, we did very little training online. Now, our full curriculum of free classes is available in the form of webinars, with classes conducted by the same wonderful instructors who lead classes in our five learning centers.

Back then, we didn't have a standalone Web site to promote greater transparency in philanthropy. Today, Glasspockets opens the world of foundations and philanthropy to all.

Back then, although we focused our training and reference work on the topic of collaboration, we didn't have an online portal dedeicated to it. Now, thanks to our partnership with the Lodestar Foundation, we maintain the Nonprofit Collaboration Database. Check it out!

Back then, we had about 230 Cooperating Collections in our Cooperating Collections network. Today, we have over 450 and have even opened Cooperating Collections in nine countries. This network of libraries, service organizations, and community foundations provides funding information and training -- as well as access to the center's databases and core publications -- to nonprofits across the U.S. and in an ever-growing number of countries.

Back then, we didn't have the highlighted text below as part of our mission statement:

To strengthen the social sector by advancing knowledge about philanthropy in the U.S. and around the world.

Now, we do, and our data collection and dissemination efforts are being expanded and becoming more international in scope. This not only serves to broaden the audience for our servces and publications, it also helps to inspire an open flow of information about global philanthropy and global needs. Our data is also being put to greater use in our new mapping tool, Philanthropy In/Sight®, which maps the impact of (and shows the need for) philanthropy around the world.

On December 10, 1956, the Foundation Library Center, as we were known then, opened its doors with the goal of collecting, organizing, and making available to the public "reports and information" about foundations. An article in the New York Times heralded that beginning as "an important event in the history of American philanthropy … it can and should do a great deal to forward the cause of 'full disclosure' in a field where it is needed" (New York TImes, 12/11/1956).

As Foundation Center president Brad Smith wrote in announcing Foundation Center 2020, our new strategic plan, "If you believe, as we do, that philanthropy is an engine for positive social change, then please join us in our effort to nurture it, to support and advance the work of those around the world who transform lives and make the world a better place."

Happy fifty-fifth anniversary, Foundation Center!

-- Inés Sucre

Sustainability: It Requires More Than Money (Pt. 3)

(This is the last in a series of three posts by Kevin Monroe, founder and managing partner of X Factor Consulting LLC and the Foundation Center-Atlanta's Expert in Residence for July. Before you dive in, catch up on Part 1 and Part 2. Both are excellent.)

I hope it's evident to those who have read my two previous posts why sustainability takes more than money. We began this conversation by focusing on the results that stem from your programs as the foundation for sustainability planning and then proceeded to explore relationships as valuable assets for your organization. In my third and final post, we finally focus on resources. However, even in this post we're looking at more than money.

Think with me for a moment. For those willing to invest the time in an exercise, get a sheet of paper or open a fresh document, select one of the programs your organization provides, and list all the resources needed to deliver that program. (If you're starting up a new program or organization this is a great planning exercise; if you have an existing logic model for your program, this will be a great help, as well.) Now, as you look at the list, what types of resources made your list? You probably included items like:

• staff (paid or volunteer) -- this includes program staff directly involved in service delivery as well as support staff (the folks who keep everything running), executive staff, and board members;
• facilities (whether it's your building or a space that's donated or shared) and all the maintenance and upkeep, including utilities;
• transportation (if you own the vehicles then you also have maintenance, upkeep, and insurance, etc.);
• computer hardware and software (both for your staff and clients, if that's part of your programming -- and, of course, those also require maintenance, updates, and technical support);
• office equipment (telephones, copiers, printers, fax machines, etc.);
• program content or curriculum, and, of course;
• funding.

The list is far from complete, but it's a start. If you already have many of these items, then (good news) you have assets and resources. If, on the other hand, you're in the early stages of starting up a program (or organization), then you probably have a wish list. Wherever you are in your journey, let's explore four possible strategies you might want to consider with respect to resources. These include: protect, conserve, leverage, and diversify (or develop). The first three strategies apply primarily to those with existing resources.

Protect

If you have resources -- especially funding (whether it comes from individuals or institutions) -- you want to do everything in your power to protect those resources. Here are a few approaches that sustainable organizations practice:

Produce excellent results for your investors. Remember people appreciate your work; they invest in your results. Make sure you know the deliverables associated with all grants and do your best to achieve them. If you know you're going to have trouble to meet agreed-upon targets, engage the funder in a discussion and see what options exist for restructuring the grant (e.g., no cost extension).

Provide timely, accurate, and comprehensive reports. Be a funder's best grantee or partner by providing them with the information they need, when they need it. Don't be afraid to go above and beyond the requirements and provide them with supplemental information (but be careful not to inundate them with e-mails).

Engage funders in media and PR (where appropriate). Learn what your funders' preferences are in terms of media exposure (and whether they want to be included in press release mailings and other media events).

Build public support for programs. This is especially important for those with government funding. Collect success stories and testimonials and engage your constituents and supporters as advocates for your organization. Make sure state and local legislators and (where appropriate) your representative know about the great results (there's that word again) your organization is producing.

In turbulent economic times like these, it's almost a given that you'll be unable to secure or hold on to certain resources, which is why it is imperative to conserve and leverage the resources you do control.

Conserve

Many organizations have become prudent to the point of being overly aggressive with their resource conservation measures. Before you start slashing away, consider these options:

Cross train staff and volunteers. Many organizations have found great opportunities to conserve resources and even save jobs by cross-training employees so that they are able to assume multiple job functions for the organization.

Audit the utilization of your facilities, programs, and staff. Make sure you are making wise use of your resources. Perhaps you can save money through creative scheduling of events or employees to reduce energy costs. One of our partners realized they could combine some programs during the summer months and not even run the air conditioning in one of their buildings on certain days.

Wisely reduce expenses wherever possible. Explore options for reducing expenses like service contracts or janitorial services. One of our clients enclosed a note with all their bill payments stating that revenues were down and asking whether vendors were willing to charge them a reduced rate. They were quite pleased by the results. (A note of caution: Think of marketing as an investment rather an expense and be careful about drastic cuts to marketing programs that may diminish the flow of funds to your organization.)

Maximize volunteer service. Explore all options for engaging volunteers in tasks that you might otherwise have to pay to have done. When unemployment is high, there are usually folks looking to fill some of their discretionary time and what may be gaps in their resumes.

Leverage

In addition to conserving resources, look for opportunities to leverage existing resources and assets that have the potential to produce revenue for your organization.

Share facilities and assets. If your organization has surplus office or meeting space explore options for renting it out or sub-leasing it to other nonprofits. Perhaps you have surplus vehicles and would consider selling them or subcontracting transportation services to other organizations. (If you do, please be sure to address all liability issues to prevent exposing your organization to risks.)

Participate in a buying coop. Combine your buying power with other local nonprofits to take advantage of cost savings. Your statewide nonprofit association (if there is one) is a great place to begin your search for coop partners.

Consolidate administrative functions with/for other organizations. Some organizations have been extremely resourceful in their approach to consolidating administrative functions through partnerships or managed service organizations (MSO). The latter build on the premise that not every nonprofit must have its own HR, finance, or facilities management department but rather can share these functions to create cost savings (and better service delivery). The Foundation Center site has a great case study documenting the creative approach two museums in Chattanooga, Tennessee, undertook and how it was a win for both. Read it here.

Explore the possibility of strategic restructuring. Joining forces with another organization may become a necessity for your organization. David LaPiana is a leading expert in this area and is featured in a podcast on the center's site that is an excellent resource for organizations interested in exploring the restructuring option.

Diversify/Develop

Finally, there are always opportunities to diversify existing assets or develop new resources for your organization or program. From my perspective, I see three (and only three) primary sources (or buckets) of funding for nonprofit organizations. Money comes from individuals, institutions, or innovative entrepreneurial efforts. Now, within these three buckets there are literally thousands of possibilities, and it's up to your organization to find the intersection of potential and capacity for fundraising success. That will differ for every organization, because so much depends on and organization's relational assets and capital. If this is your first venture into fund development beyond your current funding strategy, start by identifying opportunities where you are likely to have short-term success (low-hanging fruit). Immediate successes (even if they are small) will build confidence, enthusiasm, and momentum for the longer haul.

Here are a few questions to help identify your low-hanging fruit:

• Which individuals or institutions can you readily approach through your organization's existing relationship network?
• What area of your program outcomes best intersects their needs, wants, and desires and would encourage them to invest?
• How can you mobilize board members (or other key contacts) to dedicate time to identify high-potential opportunities?
• Can you mobilize board members to host small gatherings (house parties, informal luncheons, etc.) of their friends and associates to introduce them to your organization?
• Can you mobilize your board to create a matching gift fund? Could you use such a fund to encourage new investment from potential donors?

My recommendation is to identify the two or three areas your organization can address that will make the greatest impact on its sustainability. Develop a detailed action plan, and be intentional about its implementation. Document and share your successes and watch the excitement and enthusiasm grow.

On the topic of resources, the Foundation Center has a wealth of information (books, classes, databases, reports, podcasts, chats, etc.) that can assist you. Whether it's online communities, libraries, databases, reports, or staff, all are excellent sources of knowledge as you seek to diversify or develop resources.

We began this series by exploring results. We then turned our attention to relationships and identifying those individuals or institutions that value your results to the point of investing resources in your organization so it can continue to produce results. This, too, is a virtuous cycle. As you tend to all aspects of the cycle, you will grow your network of supporters and enhance the sustainability of your programs and organization.

This concludes my three-part series on program sustainability. I trust the posts have, in some way, stimulated your thinking in regards to program sustainability. Even more, I hope you will use the ideas and concepts in them, as well as some of the other excellent resources I've pointed you to, as jumping-off points for discussion with your staff, board, and funders. Until next time, keep your eyes on the prize.

-- Kevin Monroe

Sustainability: It Requires More Than Money (Pt. 2)

(This is the second of three posts on organizational sustainability by Kevin Monroe, founder and managing partner of X Factor Consulting LLC and FC Atlanta's Expert in Residence for July. In his previous post, he wrote about the importance of producing, documenting, packaging, and promoting program results.)

Sustainability is intentional, not accidental. Program sustainability is an outcome of strategic leadership, planning, and action occurring within an organization rather than mere chance and happenstance. In my previous post, I focused on the necessity of producing, documenting, packaging, and promoting program results as sustainability imperatives, because when people appreciate your efforts, they invest in your impact (results). This post explores relationships as a fundamental aspect of program sustainability, while the third post in the series will take a closer look at resources as the final element.

Relationships Are Organizational Assets

Relationships are primary, all else is derivative. Think about it: How has your organization and its programs benefited from relationships? If you're willing, invest a few moments now and grab a sheet of paper. Draw a line down the middle (or open a two-column document) and in the first column list some of your organization's most significant accomplishments (funding obtained, partnerships established, key staff hired, influential board members recruited, etc.). Now, in the second column, list the relationships that were either directly or indirectly involved in making those accomplishments a reality. I bet you have relationships correlated to every good thing that has happened. And that confirms something my father used to tell me: "It's not what you know, but who you know that counts." Countless times in my youth, I attempted to argue with him. Funny, isn't it, how our perspective changes as we grow older.

Your organization already has a network of relationships. The size may vary based on a number of factors -- how long your organization has existed, how many board members you have or have had through the years, the number of volunteers, community stakeholders, investors (funders and donors), staff, and partners connected to your organization. But intentionally developing new and maintaining existing relationships is a key to sustainability.

Let's explore three key concepts that illustrate the power of your relational network.

Concept 1: Dunbar's Number

The first comes from Professor Robin Dunbar, director of the Institute of Cognitive & Evolutionary Anthropology at Oxford and author of The Human Story. Dunbar has determined that there's a theoretical cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships. That number has come to be known as Dunbar's number, and he puts it at between 100 and 230, with a common value of 150. Hold that thought for a moment and let's explore the second concept, the law of attraction.

Concept 2: The Law of Attraction

Simply put, the law of attraction is the notion that like attracts like, or as my mother used to say, "Birds of a feather" -- you know the rest -- "flock together."

By combining the law of attraction with Dunbar's number, we can hypothesize that many of the people who are currently involved with our organization know other people that would also be drawn to our organization. Even if we take an extremely conservative approach to the numbers, I would suggest that everyone who is currently involved with your organization could identity ten, fifteen, even twenty other people who might have interest in your work. Think about the potential expansion of your relational network.

Concept 3: Six Degrees of Separation

If we interject a third key relational concept, things really get interesting. "Six degrees of separation" refers to the relational connectedness of our social networks -- i.e., that no one is more than six steps removed from anyone else in the world. If you combine the six degrees concept with the two other concepts, you begin to get an appreciation for the power of your existing relational network.

You don't know everyone you need to know. But everyone you know knows someone you need to know. So how do you leverage your relational network to enhance your sustainability? By being intentional. We see four key ingredients to a robust relationship strategy: identify, connect, nurture, and engage.

Identify

Invest time in identifying your organization's existing relational network. There are several ways to approach this. Here are two simple things you can do to begin mining and mapping your relational network:

1) Mine all of your existing databases (consider yourself fortunate if you have all of this in a single database) to identify all past or present relationships. Develop lists of volunteers, investors (individuals or institutions that have provided funding), past board members, partners, and (in some cases) clients.

2) Engage your board (you can also do this with staff and key volunteers) in relationship mapping for your organization. Identify the key sectors in your community that are pertinent to your organization (business, health care, faith, law enforcement, education, civic organizations, philanthropy, government, media, etc.). Use flip charts and make one page for each sector. Then develop lists of the key contacts each board member has in each of these sectors.

There are dozens of other ways to identify people for your network (just think about your social media outlets). It's easily conceivable that any organization can readily identify at least a hundred (perhaps several hundred) individuals or institutions that might be interested in its results and work. Once you've identified them, look for meaningful ways to connect.

Connect

Develop multiple avenues for creatively connecting with individuals and institutions. This can occur in very natural, organic ways that include people you know setting appointments and making introductions to people you don't but should know. In many organizations, board members (or others) set an appointment for a breakfast or lunch meeting, coffee or tea, or a round of golf. These are wonderful opportunities to initiate relationships with others who might ultimately invest their time, talent, treasure, or "touch" in your organization. But remember: the first meeting is just an opportunity for you to get to know one another and begin to develop a relationship. (It's not the time to ask for money!)

Other groups are comfortable with a more formal but still intimate approach to the initial connection and will host small informational meetings (breakfast, "lunch and learns," site visits). Regardless of the format (one-on-one, small group), the purpose is the same -- to connect with people who might want to get involved. Your organization needs to find the right mix of opportunities to connect. Once you do, it's time to nurture the relationship.

Nurture

Nurturing is an important aspect of all relationships and takes myriad forms. Handwritten thank-you notes are still incredibly valuable and make a great impact. We encourage leaders to load all their key contacts in their phones and when they find a few spare moments in a day -- stuck in traffic, waiting for someone to arrive for a meeting, during a long commute -- to reach out and touch someone with a personal call or voicemail message. Keep it short and succinct. If they're a current investor, thank them for their support and share a short success story.

Make it a point to make the most of your limited time and find ways to naturally and continually nurture relationships. Think about Dunbar's number; you may have upwards of two hundred-plus people with whom you want and need to nurture relationships, so find meaningful ways to do so regularly.

Engage

Finally, you want to engage (and continue to engage) those with whom you have relationships. Along the way you'll discover the ways in which they most want to engage with and serve your organization. But whether they decide to invest their time, talent, treasure, or touch (or, better yet, all of these) -- and when the time is right -- you'll need to be ready to provide them with the opportunity to get involved. For some, the initial involvement may be as a volunteer (time); for others it may be a financial investment (treasure), while for others it may be an in-kind offer of a specific service (talent) or an offer to be an advocate or networker (touch).

Of course, all of these are elements in a virtuous cycle, and you will continually find new ways to connect, nurture, and engage people who, hopefully, because of the law of attraction ("If I like you and what you do, I will..."), are willing to introduce you to others in their sphere of influence (six degrees).

Relationships are primary and everything else derives from them. From a program sustainability perspective, your goal is to identify as many individuals and institutions as possible that value your results (outcomes) and discover ways to connect and nurture relationships with them so as to engage them as partners who will provide resources that allow you to continue producing outstanding results.

Good luck!

-- Kevin Monroe

Sustainability: It Requires More Than Money (Pt. 1)

(Editor's note: this is the first of three posts from Kevin Monroe, founder and managing partner of X Factor Consulting LLC, and FC Atlanta's Expert in Residence for July.)

What's needed to sustain programs and/or services launched or expanded with grant funding?

For many, the first answer that comes to mind is money. Yet most of us know, from both our personal and professional lives, that money alone is not the ultimate solution to our problems. Ironically, for many organizations, too much money too early (or at the wrong time) weakens, rather than strengthens, the organization. Indeed, misunderstanding about sustainable funding abounds in the leadership ranks of many social benefit (nonprofit) organizations. I've watched organizations whose board members equated the announcement of a large grant award to winning the lottery and somehow thought the whole amount was available for discretionary spending and now their financial woes were ended. Some have regrettably slacked off, or worse, discontinued other fund development activities after receiving large grants.

If program sustainability does not hinge on money, then on what does it hang? We live in an age where people long for instant answers and silver-bullet solutions, and while providing a sure-fire sustainability silver-bullet solution would be beneficial to my bank account, I don't have one. However, what I do have to offer is an approach that is available and scalable to every organization -- not just those with an elite board and large endowment fund (though both of those are enviable assets).

Our approach to program sustainability focuses on three fundamentals that apply broadly to all organizations and programs. We call them the 3-Rs. And just as the 3-Rs of education don't include everything a student needs to know to master every subject, they are the foundational elements of a good education. Our 3-Rs are the fundamental elements essential to program sustainability. They include: results, relationships, and resources.

For existing programs, our first focus is results, and we see four key elements involved: produce, document, package, and promote.

1. Produce

What results does your program produce? (NOTE: if your program does not produce results, sustainability is a moot point as well as an exercise in futility.) Addressing program sustainability requires organizations to produce meaningful and measurable results. Results is the synonym we use for outcomes. We believe we live in a time where outcomes have overshadowed outputs. Therefore, investors in the common community good (whether individuals or institutions) want to know what's different about your clients or communities as a result of your program. It's great to have the count of how many people were served, but to what end?

2. Document

It's not enough to produce good results or outcomes. Organizations must have a system for documenting their outcomes. Unless you have a system for documenting your results, it's as though they didn't happen. (This stems from the social service maxim, If it's not documented, it didn't happen.) Program sustainability is enhanced when your documentation addresses your outcomes, not just your outputs. While it's great that you know how many service encounters were provided (outputs) under the grant, the real value, at least as it relates to sustainability, comes from documenting what's different for your clients or communities as a result of your program (outcomes). For example, an output of a job-readiness program may be the number of participants who completed the training program (acquired employable job skills along with interviewing and interpersonal skills). A short-term outcome would be the number of participants who obtain jobs and are working full-time and receiving a living wage.

In my experience consulting with government-funded human service projects, I've noticed that many grantees produced excellent results under the program and may have done great work documenting those results, but still those programs failed to be sustained. Their failures weren't program failures as much as they were shortcomings in marketing, communications, and community engagement (sustainability planning and implementation). The final two elements related to results are, arguably, the most critical in terms of sustainability: packaging and promoting your results.

3. Package

Data in and of itself is essentially useless. However, data is absolutely essential to information and knowledge. What do I mean? You can't provide funders reams of reports and expect them to sort through volumes of data looking for information about your programs or knowledge about your outcomes. Furthermore, it's important to realize that not all outcomes are equal, which makes it important to learn what outcomes are most valuable to the funder in question.

Package your results (outcomes) to showcase program impact. Many organizations have mounds of data but haven't taken the time to mine their data to find the jewels whose sparkle catches the gaze of current or potential funders and attracts both their attention and investment (initial or subsequent).

Several avenues exist for packing your results; here are a few. Focus on a change in status for your clients or communities. Perhaps your program helped move people from being homeless to housed, unemployed (even unemployable) to employed, dependent to self-sufficient. These are examples of high-impact outcomes. Another option for packaging your results to garner funder interest and investment is focusing on the return on investment (ROI) of your program. Perhaps you've leveraged massive amounts of volunteer hours or in-kind support and therefore can document significant ROI for your program. Your program may be an extremely cost-effective alternative, especially when juxtaposed with the currently funded options. For example, according to the South Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice, it costs South Carolina $300 a day to incarcerate a juvenile offender compared to $9.90 per day for intensive community-based case management and afterschool centers. For obvious reasons, the department has increased their investments in community-based corrections.

Mining your program data and extracting high-impact outcomes are ways to package your program to promote sustainability. There is one final piece, and that is to promote your results to those you know are (or may be) interested.

4. Promote

Our fourth and final element in terms of sustainability strategies is promoting your results. Hopefully you have a mix of both objective and subjective data to share consisting of reports and success stories. You see, some people are motivated by the data while others are moved by the story. I see value in having both -- the hard data which shows that your results are not an accident or a fluke but are replicable. However, real-life success stories have a way of making the data come alive rather than remaining a column of statistics.

This is strategic messaging at its best. Strategic messaging is the art of getting to know your target audience well enough to understand its motivations, interests, and desires. This allows you to skillfully promote your results in a way that best connects with your audience so they see your program intersects with their desires and advances their interests. It's important to note that you are not changing who you are or what you do, but promoting your program (or those aspects of your program) that are most appealing to the investor (funder).

It's also important to know the medium or media that your audiences prefer and, to the best of your abilities, use those media to promote your message to your audiences. Additionally, we encourage organizations to think broadly about other individuals or institutions that may, or should, care about your results if they were appropriately packaged and promoted. We’ll explore that more in next week's blog post when we examine the other two Rs -- resources and relationships.

Parting Thoughts

As you think about your results, I encourage you to remember that people appreciate your efforts but invest in your impact. While it's nice to be appreciated, you need investment to sustain your program. In your dialogue with current or prospective investors (funders), focus on the impact or outcomes of your program rather than its structure and activities. And invest some time to reflect on your current practices regarding your results and what steps you can take to better produce, document, package, and promote your results to enhance the sustainability of your programs.

-- Kevin Monroe

Project Streamline Assessment Tool

Foundation Center president Brad Smith struck a nerve with his "Don't Call Us" post a few weeks back. In it, Brad addressed the all-too-familiar problem (for nonprofits) of foundations that don't accept unsolicited proposals and offered good advice to grantseekers as well as grantmakers frustrated by the trend.

The flip side to the phenomenon, as most nonprofit execs will tell you, are grantmakers who overburden grantseekers (and themselves) with onerous grant application and reporting practices. Lowering the barriers to nonprofit success represented by these burdensome (and often duplicative) practices is the goal of Project Streamline, an initiative of grantmakers and grantseekers that we wrote about in April '08 and again in April '09. (Full disclosure: the Foundation Center is a partner in the effort.)

Last week, two of the groups behind the initiative -- the Grant Managers Network and the Center for Effective Philanthropy -- announced the launch of a Grantmaker Assessment Tool, a free online survey for grantmakers that generates a comparative report about a grantmaker's application and reporting processes. With that data (aggregated, to ensure that participation and results are confidential), grantmakers can:

• Compare their grantmaking processes to those of other funders;
• Determine the costs of those processes;
• Identify opportunities to streamline within their organizations; and
• Track their progress over time.

The tool is free to use, and because it provides comparative analyses, the more grantmakers who try it, the greater the benefits to the field. Sounds like a win-win to me.

To get started, click here.

-- Mitch Nauffts

'Dirty' Money

(Michael Seltzer is a regular contributor to PhilanTopic. His last post featured a Q&A with Jennifer Buffett, president and co-chair of the NoVo Foundation.)

An article in Monday's New York Times ("Mexican Church Takes a Closer Look at Donors") focuses on an issue that's as old as philanthropy itself. Should a nonprofit's leadership decline a gift when a donor's activities run counter to the organization's mission? To put it another way, to what extent was Alfred Nobel, the inventor of dynamite and a highly successful manufacturer of armaments, hoping to burnish his reputation as the man "who became rich by finding ways to kill more people faster than ever before" by creating the Nobel Prize? And does anyone care 115 years after the Swedish chemist's death?

Damien Cave, the reporter who wrote the piece in the Times, begins the article with an anecdote about a shiny, new Roman Catholic chapel in Pachuca, Mexico. Nothing unusual about that in a country which takes its religion seriously, except perhaps for the donor who made it possible: one Heriberto Lazcano Lazcano, leader of the Zetas, a ruthless drug trafficking syndicate. Indeed, the narcotraficante's support is acknowledged by a bronze plaque on the chapel's exterior engraved with a line from Psalm 143: "Lord, hear my prayer, answer my plea" -- a gruesome bit of irony given that Lazcano is known locally as "the executioner." Having gotten wind of it, Cave reports, embarrassed officials of the Roman Catholic Church in Mexico have begun to question the Church's longstanding acceptance of "narco alms" and its historic ties to drug traffickers.

In both good and lean economic times (but especially the latter), temptation, like the wolf in the Three Little Pigs fairy tale, knocks on many a nonprofit door. I recall vividly, many decades later, the words of a civil rights leader in the South who declared, "The problem with tainted money is 'tain't' enough." I've also heard firsthand from many nonprofits that have struggled with this decision and/or declined financial support from a funding source whose practices were perceived to be in direct conflict with the organization's values. Let's face it, these are treacherous waters for an organization’s leadership, and the chances of running afoul of key external stakeholders, especially donors, is great.

Consider these scenarios:

Should environmental organizations have refused to accept all future donations from BP after last summer's Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico?

Should women's and LGBT organizations continue to solicit support from major media companies that publish magazines which objectify women as sex objects?

Should community-based health organizations, especially those serving low-income and minority communities, accept financial support from fast food and soft drink companies?

What is the best course of action for nonprofit executives when businesses tie their corporate contributions to their own marketing objectives?

After years of thinking about the subject and observing many of my nonprofit colleagues struggle with the issue, I've developed a number of recommendations for nonprofits that find themselves with similar decisions to make.

Know your donors. Donors rarely come in a single size or shape. In fact, their willingness to open their checkbook typically is due to a multiplicity of reasons that vary from donor to donor. It behooves a nonprofit therefore to learn as much as it can about its key supporters' interests and affinities. One useful tool to this end is Survey Monkey, a free online service that nonprofits can use to solicit anonymously expressed opinions, on any issue, from their supporters.

Develop a gift-acceptance policy. Tough calls like the ones listed above should not be made on an ad hoc basis. Boards should be proactive in developing, adopting, and publicizing policies to help inform gift-acceptance decisions.

Check out online resources. Organizations such as the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, CERES, Transparency International, and Working Assets have been leaders in tracking companies' corporate citizenship efforts and, recently, have been joined by other organizations working to grade companies within specific industries. For example, the Access to Medicine Foundation Index ranks the world's pharmaceutical companies on the basis of their efforts to increase access to global medicines. Similarly, the Sustainable Apparel Coalition recently announced it was developing an online tool to track "the environmental impact of every manufacturer, component and process in apparel production, with the aim of using that information to eventually give every garment a sustainability score" ("Clothes Makers Join to Set 'Green Score'," New York Times, March 1, 2011).

Put the topic of 'dirty' money on the agenda of national and international meetings. Most nonprofits have multiple opportunities to interact and network with peer organizations in their mission space. In the international arena, organizations such as InterAction have helped set guidelines and requirements for their members in most areas of practice. Many nonprofits also have access to listservs and discussion groups that target the leadership of like-minded groups. Use those opportunities and forums to raise the issue of questionable donations and to press for the adoption of clearly stated guidelines.

Ask your Association of Fundraising Executives chapter to address the topic with a program. It's not uncommon for arts institutions, for example, to address the issue differently than community-based health and nutrition groups. That doesn't mean that nonprofit leaders can't learn from organizations in other fields. In any case, it's an important enough issue to put on the agenda at the next meeting of your local AFP chapter.

Those of us who work in the social sector cannot afford to take our organizations' reputations for granted. Indeed, some would say it's our most valuable asset. One only has to look at the many nonprofits whose reputations were tarnished by public disclosure of a serious lapse of judgment (and the fundraising consequences that followed) to remind ourselves that good stewardship -- of our organizations and the sector -- depend on our adherence to the highest standards of transparency and accountability.

-- Michael Seltzer

'Don’t Call Us, We’ll Call You'

(Bradford K. Smith is the president of the Foundation Center. In his previous post, he wrote about transparency and the Giving Pledge.)

Okay. You're working at a great nonprofit, you've got a wonderful idea that's going to change the world, and all you need is a grant to get you started. Guess what? The majority of America's foundations don't want you to send in a proposal.

Of the more than 86,000 independent, community, and corporate foundations in the United States, 60 percent state that they do not accept unsolicited proposals. Together they represent 32 percent of total assets and 34 percent of annual giving. Nearly $16 billion of the $46 billion distributed every year is not up for grabs; you need an invitation.

Foundations in America are private institutions and have the right to decide how, when, and on what terms they will accept proposals and make their grants. At the Foundation Center, we respect that right and clearly indicate in our databases when a particular foundation does not want to receive unsolicited proposals. But people seeking foundation grants find this more than a bit frustrating. One of their most common questions is, "Why won't foundation X let me send in my proposal?"

There are at least two reasons. The first is foundation size. Dealing responsibly with requests for funding requires significant effort, time, and people. Yet in one Foundation Center survey of 11,000 foundations, 76 percent of respondents had fewer than four staff. Foundations are frequently inundated with proposals. My own experience working in philanthropy has taught me that for every grant approved by a foundation, eleven more are declined. The ratio can be much worse. One year at the Ford Foundation -- which accepts unsolicited proposals and has hundreds of staff -- we decided to count every letter of inquiry, e-mail, and actual proposal and came up with something on the order of 144,000. The number of grants actually made that year? Fewer than three thousand. The situation could be helped if foundations were clearer about their grantmaking priorities and nonprofits were more careful in targeting their proposals, but the reality is one of greater demand than supply. From a foundation's perspective, not accepting proposals can be like building a dyke to hold back the flood.

The second reason has to do with the growing emphasis in philanthropy on strategy and social impact. Foundations may command billions of dollars, but the challenges they aspire to address -- educational quality, access to health care, workforce and economic development, climate change, and more -- require far greater resources. Moreover, in recent years a new wave of business-oriented, often younger philanthropists have entered the field and brought with them notions of social investment, metrics, and assessment. All this adds up to a trend among some foundations to design their own theories of change and strategies and then either implement programs themselves or select the organizations from which they are willing to entertain proposals. The actual design of these strategies frequently is done in collaboration with nonprofits and universities, so if you happen to be part of the process, you'll most likely get a grant. If not, well, you're just not part of the in-crowd.

In 2009, with the economy in the tank, I was doing a live chat with the Chronicle of Philanthropy and someone asked whether they should still try when a foundation said it didn't accept unsolicited proposals. My answer was not "no," but rather that they should pay attention to what the foundation is saying and try to find someone who knows a board member, a staff person, or any other connection that would help get them in the door. In our grantseeking classes here at the center, we always teach that a grant begins with a relationship. That's true whether a foundation accepts unsolicited proposals or not.

Lately, I've seen some slightly less foreboding language crop up on a number of foundation Web sites: "The foundation does not encourage unsolicited proposals." Maybe that's the solution for smaller foundations not wanting to be overwhelmed and larger, highly strategic foundations striving to maximize their impact. Foundations receive a tax exemption on their investment income in exchange for contributing to the public good. One way to do that is to maintain at least a single program area, however small, that invites the public, in the form of nonprofits, to freely apply for grants. Besides, no matter how knowledgeable a donor, staff, and consultants might be, the next big idea out there may be the one that literally comes in over the transom.

What do you think?

-- Brad Smith

Absolute Transparency: An Illuminating Approach to the Grantmaking Process

(Karen Topakian was executive director of the Agape Foundation for sixteen years. The foundation merged in 2010 with the Peace Development Fund. She currently is the owner of Topakian Communications, a writing and communications consulting firm. This post originally appeared on the Foundation Center's Transparency Talk blog.)

Transparency in clothing can be provocative. Transparency in decision-making can be illuminating. That's what the founders of the Agape Foundation thought when they decided that their grantmaking process must occur in the light of day, in an environment of complete transparency.

Agape's full name, The Agape Foundation–Fund for Nonviolent Social Change, indicated its commitment to the practice of nonviolence in word and deed. The foundation believed that those with the power, grantmakers, needed to act with openness and accountability toward those without, grantseekers.

Most foundations conduct their grantmaking process behind closed doors, shrouding grantmaking activities in a secrecy that can perpetuate a perception of elitism. Such a perception damages the sector, and can breed ill will and mistrust.

By making the process transparent, grantmakers can speak directly to grantseekers and forge a partnership around shared values and actions. That transparency also provides an opportunity for grantseekers to see what parts of their proposal and organization resonate with funders, and what parts may be unclear or misunderstood.

It was this philosophy of transparency and partnership that drove the grant decision-making process among Agape's board of trustees. This body of activists and nonprofit leaders read, reviewed, and discussed the proposals after the staff eliminated those organizations which did not meet our guidelines. (Agape only funded young, California-based, grassroots social change organizations.)

The board then winnowed the docket down to five to eight proposals that best matched Agape's mission and funding criteria. The real show, however, took place at the next phase of the grantmaking process: the session where the applicants made their presentations, live and in person.

These final candidates received an invitation to attend a day-long session. Often groups were invited because the board had questions that weren't answered in the proposal. An invitation did not guarantee funding, however.

At the granting session, the grantseekers were required to make a ten-minute presentation and answer questions from the board. Their participation need not have ended there. They were also invited to listen to other groups' presentations, join the board for lunch, witness their deliberations and final granting decisions, and participate in an evaluation of both the process and the session at the end of the day.

Board members and grantseekers had to abide by two rules of engagement:

• Board members were expected to use the question time to raise any outstanding concerns or questions about the proposal so that the grantseeker could address them
• Grantseekers could not speak during the board's deliberations

The lunch session that followed allowed board, staff, and grantseekers to build community by sharing food and camaraderie as partners and fellow activists -- further breaking down the barriers between the grantmaker and grantseeker. This informal part of the meeting also allowed grantseekers to meet each other and learn more about each other's work, with the hope that they would develop relationships, collaborations, and community.

After the presentations, the board began their official deliberations, deciding on grantees and grant amounts by consensus. Not all decisions came easily. Sometimes the board chose not to fund a proposal because they felt the organization was not capable of completing the work as described. Other proposals were declined because the presenter could neither adequately answer the board's questions nor address major concerns.

If that happened, the grantseeker would have known why from the questions and discussion that took place during their presentation. Those moments were always the hardest for all involved, but provided a valuable learning experience for the grantseeker.

Sometimes the board had difficulty reaching consensus on the amount of the grant. But through open and honest discussion, they eventually came up with an amount upon which all could agree.

The final item on the agenda, the evaluation of the process, included everyone. Most importantly, the grantseeker could share their thoughts and feelings about the experience, allowing Agape's board and staff to learn how their actions were seen and felt by others. This stage, like all the others, was always done with an eye toward improving the process the next time -- and always with an eye toward transparency.

-- Karen Topakian

Trends in Giving, Volunteering, and the Outlook for 2011

Nice chart from USA Today showing breakdown and trends in U.S. charitable giving:

 

Click on the "Time" tab for an equally nice statistical portrait of volunteering by region:

(If you're reading this in e-mail, click here.)

And what about this year? According to a new survey (34 pages, PDF) by the Nonprofit Research Collaborative (NRC) -- i.e., the Association of Fundraising Professionals, Blackbaud, the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University, the Foundation Center, GuideStar USA, and the National Center for Charitable Statistics -- U.S. nonprofits saw a slight improvement in giving in the first nine months of 2010, although it hasn't been enough to help many nonprofits that are grappling with staff and/or service cuts even as demand for their services has increased.

Based on questions that GuideStar used for its annual economic survey and 2,513 responses, the survey found that 36 percent of charities reported an increase in donations in the first nine months of 2010, compared with only 23 percent in the same period of 2009; 37 percent reported a decline in giving, down from 51 percent in 2009; and 26 percent reported that giving was unchanged, up slightly from the 25 percent that reported the same thing in 2009.

"For the first time in two years, there is cause for cautious optimism about the nonprofit sector," said Bob Ottenhoff, president and CEO of GuideStar. "Nonetheless, in this latest study, as in all prior years, nonprofits are also reporting increased demand for their services...."

The survey also found that:

• In four of eight subsectors, the share of organizations reporting an increase in contributions was about the same as the share reporting a decrease. The four with nearly equal percentages of organizations with giving up and giving down were the arts, education, environment/animals, and human services.
• International organizations were the most likely to report an increase in contributions, reflecting donations made for disaster relief.
• In three subsectors -- health, public-society benefit, and religion -- a larger share of the organizations reported declines than reported increases.
• The larger an organization's annual expenditures, the more likely it reported an increase in charitable receipts in the first nine months of 2010 compared with the same period in 2009.

"Younger, less well-established nonprofits have been especially hard hit by the recession," noted Lawrence T. McGill, vice president for research at the Foundation Center. "Many foundations, seeking to maximize more limited resources, have steered their grantmaking toward organizations they believe have the best chance to weather the economic storm."

As for 2011, most organizations that responded to the survey were guardedly optimistic, with 47 percent saying they plan budget increases, 33 percent expecting to maintain their current level of expenditures, and 20 percent anticipating a smaller budget.

What about your organization? Do the survey results accurately reflect what’s going on in your area? Are revenues at your nonprofit higher than they were in 2009? And what about 2011? Is it shaping up as a better year for your organization? Worse? Or is it too early to tell?

NY Times 2010 'Giving' Section

Each year, the paper of record delights us with a whole section devoted to charitable giving and philanthropy. The 2010 edition of the Times' "Giving" section was published yesterday, and as we did in 2008 (but not in '09), here's a rundown of what you may have missed.

(Special thanks to Reilly Kiernan for putting this roundup together.)

Pledge to Give Away Fortunes Stirs Debate (Stephanie Strom)
Discusses the implications of the "Giving Pledge" campaign launched earlier this year by Warren Buffett and Bill and Melinda Gates. Forty American billionaires have pledged to give away at least half their fortunes to charity, but the campaign has not escaped the scrutiny of critics.

The Special Pain of a Slow Disaster (Lydia Polgreen)
Looks at why "slow-moving disasters" like this summer's epic flooding in Pakistan frequently command less attention from the international aid community than quick-strike disasters such as earthquakes and hurricanes.

Giving a Gift and Getting a Return (Jan M. Rosen)
Lays out the issues related to charitable gift annuities and explains why such arrangements aren't right for everyone.

In Case of Disaster, Carriers Stand Ready to Airlift Aid (Ken Belson)
Looks at how for-profit shipping carriers and airlines use in-kind donations to bolster emergency relief efforts. In recent years, U.S. airlines have delivered aid supplies to countries and regions as far fling as Chile, Haiti, and the Gulf Coast -- all for free.

Young Activists Practice Their Pitches for Nonprofits (John Hanc)
Looks at a recent social enterprise “boot camp” facilitated by Dosomething.org in which participants were taught basic business skills like how to hone their elevator pitch.

As Millions Seek Work, an Overhaul in Retraining (Catherine Rampell)
Skills for America’s Future, a new Obama administration initiative, seeks to emulate the best practices of programs that have succeeded in preparing low-income people to enter or (re)-enter the labor market.

Boston Museum Grows by Casting a Wide Net (Judith H. Dobrzynski)
Explores how the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston raised an unprecedented $504 million in cash donations and $165 million in art over the course of a seven-year campaign -- in part by wooing donors from beyond the Boston area.

Fly-Fishing Group Offers an Escape From the Hospital (Dave Caldwell)
A different kind of cancer support group, Casting for Recovery, uses fly fishing to help cancer patients come to terms with their illness.

As Donors Retrench, Challenges for Universities (Geraldine Fabrikant)
With giving to Universities and colleges having dropped 11.9 percent in 2009 and economic recovery on a slow track to nowhere, university fundraisers are scrambling to adapt tried-and-true tactics to a changed environment.

Pooling Small Contributions, Hoping for Big Results (John Hanc)
Uses anecdotes to demonstrate how creative organizations such as Small Can Be Big use social networking tools to aggregate small donations and create big impact.

Online Giving, One Person at a Time (Farhad Manjoo)
Looks at some of the approaches nonprofits are using to turn their followers and friends on social network channels into donors.

Nike Harnesses 'Girl Effect' Again (Stuart Elliott)
An updated look at Nike’s "Girl Effect" cause marketing campaign, which leverages the brand’s global reach to shine a light on issues facing girls and young women in the developing world.

Charities Wrestle With Tax Uncertainty (David Cay Johnston)
Uncertainty about potential changes in the tax code -- including the return of the estate tax -- are forcing charities to come up with new ways to solicit endowment gifts.

Helping Veterans Find Civilian Jobs (Elizabeth Olson)
A look at how corporations have provided funding for computer, green tech, and healthcare training programs designed to help veterans re-enter the workforce.

Putting Star Power Behind Good Works (Stephanie Strom)
When it comes to their favorite charitable causes, mega-stars like Sean Penn and Brad Pitt are going beyond lip service and truly walking the talk.

For Autistic Children, Therapy on Four Legs (Karen Jones)
Discusses the benefits for children with autism of regular visits from therapy dogs.

Foundations With a Limited Life (Deborah L. Jacobs)
Looks at some of the reasons why a growing number of wealthy families and individuals have decided to establish foundations with a limited lifespan.

Looking for a Job? Try a Nonprofit (Phyllis Korkki)
Talks about the recent spike in hiring at nonprofits and the growing number of positions that require a new media and tech skill set.

Disclosure Runs into 140 Character Limits (Deborah L. Jacobs)
Suggests that new technologies can pose problems for nonprofits seeking to fully disclose the details of their fundraising campaigns and initiatives.

-- Reilly Kiernan

Frightening Proposals II

(The following post was written by Stephen Sherman, reference librarian at the Foundation Center-Atlanta, and originally appeared on the Philanthropy Front and Center-Atlanta blog.)

It's Halloween again, and we couldn't help but reprise the theme from last year's post and bring you more frightening proposals. With a nod to some classic horror films, here are some habits that provoke dread and angst in the hearts of proposal reviewers.

The Fog (the virtue of clarity)
In an attempt to impress a new potential funder with your educational expertise, you bring out your heftiest thesaurus and start stringing together words in your best academic tone. You cite DOE research on the merits of mainstreaming versus differentiated instruction and the impact of NCLB on the children of socioeconomically disadvantaged families. Your project proposes to engage the interdisciplinary learning styles of students by synthesizing holistic relationships among community stakeholders and promises to challenge students to expand their learning horizons through innovative programming. The result, unfortunately, is a frightful haze of jargon, acronyms, and vague terminology that obscures any real notion of what the project hopes to accomplish.

What's the most important characteristic that funders point to when describing a successful proposal? Clarity. After all, if a funder can't understand the goals or methods of the program, what incentive do they have to fund it? Suggestions for proposal writers:

• Use acronyms sparingly, and if they are absolutely necessary, be sure to spell them out at least once.
• Don't use a big word when a simpler one will do.
• When the proposal is finished, give it to someone outside your organization to read and see if they can readily understand the project and its objectives.

The Invisible Man (keeping your budget consistent)
Your proposal narrative includes a detailed description of how you will hire four project managers to lead your vocational training program for young adults. Yet when the reviewer turns the page to examine your budget, it includes salaries for only three new staff members. So, where did that fourth project manager go? Will they work for free, or are they just invisible in the eyes of your accountant?

The budget can be the most important piece of your proposal. When reviewing proposals, many funders look to the budget first for a quick overview of the project. A poorly composed budget can be the reason many proposals go unfunded. More than anything else, the budget must be consistent with the proposal narrative. Any supplies, equipment, or, in this case, personnel costs must reflect the staffing and methods outlined in the project description. When a grantmaker sees clear inconsistencies or mathematical errors in a proposal budget, it raises questions about an organization's ability to properly manage funds. Other recommendations for budgets:

• Keep a worksheet showing how all expenses were calculated with explanatory notes in case questions pop up from funders
• Be as accurate as possible in projecting costs. Get actual quotes from vendors and always double-check your math.
• Identify all expense items and then research specific costs for each line item. Don't forget to account for inflation and other annual increases when budgeting for multi-year projects.
• Don't leave out in-kind contributions. Even if goods or services are donated, they still represent part of the overall costs of the program, and, on the revenue side, demonstrate community support for your program that will reflect well on the proposal.

Scream (following the rules to survive)
When Scream was released in 1996, it gave us three little rules to surviving a horror movie. Follow these rules, the characters were told, and you might just make it through the experience in one piece. But if you don't, you could find yourself in serious danger. The same principle applies to proposal writing. Okay, so you probably won't have a foundation's program officer putting on a scary mask and chasing you around your office if you stray a little from the application guidelines. But you may find that a grantmaker is less likely to fund your proposal if you fail to include key components or don't follow the proper procedures. Some tips:

• Keep a print copy of the funder's guidelines and use it as a checklist when compiling your application materials. 
• When in doubt, contact the funder and ask. If your nonprofit hasn't had an audit, for example, call the foundation and ask if you might substitute a copy of your most recent Form 990 or other financial statements.
• Submit your proposal far enough ahead of time so that if you are missing a key document, you still have time to send it in before the deadline. 

The rules may seem tedious from the grantseeker's perspective, but these guidelines are meant to facilitate the grantmaking process and cut down on the amount of time foundation staff spend reviewing stacks of proposals. Follow the instructions and the reviewer will stay happy. Ignore the rules, and it will make the funder want to, well, you know...

Want to exorcise your proposal writing demons? Check out these titles in our library collection:

Grant Proposal Makeover: Transform Your Request from No to Yes.
By Cheryl A. Clarke and Susan P. Fox.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 2007.

90 Days to Success in Grant Writing.
By Tim Kachinske and Judith Kachinske.
Boston: Course Technology PTR, 2009.

The Foundation Center's Guide to Proposal Writing (5th ed.).
By Jane C. Geever.
New York: Foundation Center, 2007.

-- Stephan Sherman

And don't forget to check out the Developing Proposals area of our new GrantSpace site for additional resources, including podcasts, training, and sample documents. 

-- Stephen Sherman

ANNOUNCEMENT: Foundation Center Launches Online Learning Community

(Cynthia Bailie is the director of special information initiatives at the Foundation Center and heads the center's Cleveland office. She blogs regularly at the Philanthropy Front and Center-Cleveland blog and wrote about the center's Nonprofit Collaboration Database for PhilanTopic in May.)

Are you wasting time looking for resources, tools, and training needed to kick-start your fundraising and social change efforts? Good news. The Foundation Center has added a new online community to its portfolio of web properties that has everything you need in one place.

After a year-long process built on engaging with our audiences and five decades as the nation's leading authority on philanthropy, the Foundation Center is pleased to announce the launch of grantspace.org. GrantSpace places the best information about grants and fundraising within reach of organizations of all sizes, providing grantseekers with a one-stop shop for knowledge, community, and expert guidance. Complementing the resources on the Foundation Center's main site, foundationcenter.org, GrantSpace gathers, on a single convenient platform, recent news, reports, podcasts, videos, statistics, sample documents, and requests for proposals related to the most pressing social change issues of the day. Links to relevant FAQs are included throughout the site, and an "Ask Us" link on each page connects visitors to expert assistance from Foundation Center staff via live chat or e-mail. The site also offers a comprehensive calendar that lists and allows registration for upcoming Foundation Center training opportunities in classrooms around the U.S. as well as online.

GrantSpace's user-focused assortment of tools and resources is designed to get you up-to-speed on all it takes to finance and operate a nonprofit organization. Register now (it's free) and begin rating content and weighing in on what matters to you. New members can also grab a free 24-hour subscription to the Foundation Directory Online Professional, the center's searchable database of nearly 100,000 grantmakers and more than two million grants.

But wait, there's more. Over the coming months, we'll be introducing an online diagnostic tool for nonprofit practitioners looking to add to their knowledge base; a variety of community forums; live events; and additional must-have content from the Foundation Center and its growing list of partners.

In the meantime, we want to hear from you. What would you like to see in GrantSpace? Know of a cool tool or compelling content we should add? Drop us a line using the Feedback link and we'll see what we can do.

What are you waiting for? Click on over to GrantSpace to explore a growing range of in-depth content, engage with your peers and experts, and energize your fundraising efforts. And, of course, feel free to share your thoughts and feedback in the comments section.

-- Cindy Bailie

Announcement: Foundation Center Seeks Host Orgs for Cooperating Collections Network

(Kief Schladweiler is coordinator of cooperating collections at the Foundation Center.)

The Foundation Center is looking for host organizations that are ready to join with us to meet the information and training needs of organizations and individuals whose grantseeking needs are not being met.

The center needs your help in identifying appropriate host organizations for our Cooperating Collection network. Cooperating Collections are free funding information centers located in libraries, community foundations, and other nonprofit resource centers that provide a core collection of Foundation Center print and electronic publications and a variety of supplementary materials, training, and services in areas useful to grantseekers.

We are particularly interested in reaching underresourced and underserved populations across the United States and in other locations around the globe that are in need of and can use this information and training to become successful grantseekers.

Watch the video below to learn more about the program and share it with your contacts and colleagues. And if you know of a potential host organization, feel free to use our handy online form to nominate them.

Thanks. With your help, we can continue to ensure free public access to these needed resources in the U.S. and around the world.

-- Kief Schladweiler