PhilanTopic

Weekend Link Roundup (May 11-12, 2013)

Our weekly roundup of new and noteworthy posts from and about the nonprofit sector....

Communications/Marketing

On the Philanthropy Potluck blog, Megan Sullivan shares a list of tools for resource-constrained nonprofit communications officers.

Fundraising

Frustrated by your organization's inability to turn its good work into consistent, sustainable donor support? Hop over to the Fired-Up Fundraising blog, where fundraising consultant Gail Perry shares a very good list of the ten things you need to understand about how fundraising really works. Recommended.

Impact/Effectiveness

On the Markets for Good blog, Laura Quinn, executive director of Idealware, argues that as much as funders and others value the idea of more and better performance data from nonprofits, most nonprofits do not have the resources to provide high-quality data about their own effectiveness. How do we get them to a point where that’s possible? asks Quinn.

It would take more than just a little training or a second look at their priorities. They'd need sizable investments in a number of areas. They'd need help with technology, and to understand how to best make use of data and metrics on a limited budget. They'd need a rationalized set of metrics and indicators that they're expected to report on, standardized as much as possible per sector with a standard way to provide them to those who need them.

Funders need to understand what is and isn't feasible, and to redirect the focus of their desire for community impact evaluations from small nonprofits to the university and research world so the nonprofits they support can be unencumbered to work toward a better world....

Building out the "information infrastructure" of the social sector, as Markets for Good and its supporters (the Gates and Hewlett foundations prominent among them) propose to do, is an admirable idea, writes Bridgespan's Daniel Stid on the Markets for Good blog. But "if we build it," he asks, "will the putative buyers and sellers in the envisioned marketplace -- the philanthropists and nonprofits spending and soliciting money within it -- use it as planned?... [W]ill better information change their behavior?" What do you think? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

Leadership

"There are a number of affinity groups that focus on bringing together younger grantmakers," writes Greater New Orleans Foundation president Albert Ruesga on the White Courtesy Telephone blog. "Their challenge, as I see it, is to avoid simply turning younger practitioners in the field into older practitioners in the field...."

Nonprofit Management

In an excellent post on the Nonprofit Quarterly site, Minnesota Council of Nonprofits executive director Jon Pratt argues that financial independence not only is something that nonprofits should strive for, it's something they can achieve -- with good planning, continuous and active attention, and lots of hard work.

Philanthropy

In a world characterized by growing social and environmental challenges, foundations need to think and act more like "catalysts," writes Erik Rasmussen, founder and CEO of Scandinavian think tank Monday Morning, on the Huffington Post's Social Entrepreneurship blog. What's more, says Rasmussen, catalytic philanthropy isn't about how much you give,

but how you give. [C]atalytic foundations have realized that they can make a big difference not by writing checks but by offering their competencies, network[s] and way of thinking as a new form of capital. By doing so, they bring forth innovative capital that opens the door to great changes and improvements in society. Imagine what change we could gain from one hundred philanthropists thinking and working [like] Bill Gates, Warren Buffett or David Rockefeller....

"What does the journey from entrepreneur to philanthropist look like, and how can we chart these experiences to help the cause of more and increasingly effective giving?" asks Charles Harvey, pro-vice-chancellor for humanities and social sciences at Newcastle University. Citing Andrew Carnegie as "perhaps the best example" of an entrepreneur-turned-philanthropist, Harvey, who helped lead the research team that looked into the question, writes: We want this research to show there is a logical process at play which many struggle to understand. Entrepreneurs apply the same rigour and disciplines from the world of commerce to the charitable sector, which suggests there is in fact a science to giving at this level that can be replicated and learned from....

What are the hallmarks of "entrepreneurial" philanthropy? Harvey and his team suggest the following:

• It is the pursuit by entrepreneurs on a not-for-profit basis of big social objectives through active involvement of their economic, cultural, social and symbolic resources.
• They apply business-like methods when making social investments: key performance indicators and rates of return.
• Entrepreneurs invest more than simply money [in] their causes: time, connections, the "know-how," branding.
• They like to leverage investments and frequently partner with others, including governments.
• Businessmen and women don't believe in giving handouts. They want to help others to help themselves.

Technology

Joanne Fritz has a good post on crowdfunding site Benevolent, which enables Chicagoans to help ordinary folks who find themselves in a tough spot. As Fritz explains, the site is effective in part because it works with nonprofits that "vouch" for the individuals listed (i.e., verify that their needs are legitimate and reasonable). The site has been a hit, she adds, because it's simple to use and because people understand that giving through Benevolent is less about charity and more about "neighbors helping neighbors."

On her Philanthropy 2173 blog, Blueprint 2013 author Lucy Bernholz fleshes out her digital civil society concept and explains that the discussion going forward should be focused on governance issues and how such assets work, not about gadgets.

That's it for now. What did we miss? Drop us a line at rnm@foundationcenter.org. And have a good week!

-- The Editors

Weekend Link Roundup (March 2-3, 2013)

Our weekly roundup of new and noteworthy posts from and about the nonprofit sector....

African Americans

Washington Post reporter Vanessa Small recaps a recent networking and panel discussion devoted to "young black philanthropy" hosted by boutique marketing firm Friends of Ebonie at National Council of Negro Women headquarters in Washington, D.C. "At one point, the conversation turned to whether wealthy African Americans are doing enough to give back," writes Small, "and by the end of the night, a consensus developed that all African Americans need to do more to hold one another accountable for how they give their time and money."

On one of the last days of Black History Month, a post on the Case Foundation blog celebrated the charity of African Americans:

Giving back and helping others is the fundamental premise of philanthropy and this premise has been a central tenet of African American culture. The distinguished researcher Mary Winters notes in her study on Endowment Building in the African American Community that perhaps out of survival, "Black Americans have been compelled to share and give back from the moment they arrived on the shores of this country. When they have money to give, they give; when there was no money to give, a generous heart, a strong back or a keen mind. As a value, 'giving back' is firmly rooted in black history." Research funded by the Kellogg Foundation supports this belief. The report, Cultures of Giving: Energizing and Expanding Philanthropy by and for Communities of Color, shows that African Americans give 25 percent more of their income [annually] than white Americans. These findings go to show just how deep the spirit of giving runs within the black community....

Communications/Marketing

On her Non-Profit Marketing blog, Katya Andresen shares some highlights from a post by Steve Daigneault at M+R Research Labs about what the Obama reelection campaign got right -- and not so right -- in terms of its digital outreach efforts.

Impact/Effectiveness

In a guest post on the GuideStar blog, Social Solutions co-founder and vice president Adrian Bordone discusses the importance of measuring outcomes, as opposed to outputs, when it comes to social change work.

Meanwhile, over at Social Fish, Jamie Nutter, vice president of organizational effectiveness at Management Solutions, argues that actionable data is better than big data -- and learning trumps both.

Looking for some inexpensive (as in free) productivity apps? Google apps -- Gmail, Calendar, Drive, and others -- are now available free of charge to any nonprofit that has joined the Google for Nonprofits program. Not a member? To learn more, click here.

Leadership

On the Harvard Business Review blog, John McKinley writes that when it comes to identifying leaders who can effect lasting social change, what matters most is resilience. According to McKinley, who manages the Acumen Fund's Global Fellows Program, the three key characteristics of resilient leaders are:

1. Grit: Short-term focus on tasks at hand, a willingness to slog through broken systems with limited resources, and pragmatic problem-solving skills.
2. Courage: Action in the face of fear and embracing the unknown.
3. Commitment: Long-term optimism and focus on big-picture goals.

What's more, says McKinley, "resilience can be trained." At Acumen, he writes, "we focus on building not only the fellows' financial and operational skills, but also what we call "moral imagination," which requires balancing opposing values -- humility and audacity -- to see the world as it is and to imagine the world for what it could be.

Philanthropy

In the latest installment of her Making Change podcast, Hildy Gottlieb, author of The Pollyanna Principles, chats with Foundation Center president Brad Smith about why foundations should pay attention to radical thinkers and six factors that are driving social change globally.

On the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy’s Keeping a Close Eye blog, Niki Jagpal and Kevin Laskowski remind us that foundations have been supporting social justice movements for decades. "The Ford Foundation, for example, was a critical source of funding for groups such as the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)," they write. And as the social justice movement presses on, "philanthropy has a special opportunity to strengthen American democracy. All of us in the third sector, especially leaders and supporters of nonprofits on the frontlines of fighting injustice, can keep this momentum going by being effective advocates for social justice giving."

The first issue of Philanthropy Impact magazine, a UK-based quarterly that aims "to make sense of and inspire philanthropy in a domestic and international context," is available has a free download (8 pages, PDF). The issue, which was guest edited by Philanthrocapitalism co-author Michael Green, includes articles on the urgent need for better data to understand and strengthen giving, why narratives matter in philanthropy, and why impact assessment tells us little about whether charities are effective and deserve our support.

Social Change

And on the Stanford Social Innovation Review blog, Kristen Grimm, president of Spitfire Strategies, a PR firm that works exclusively with foundations and nonprofits, identifies seven common blind spots that sneak into change strategies and a four-step process for identifying and eliminating them -- before they sabotage even the most worthy campaigns.

That's it for now. What did we miss? Drop us a line at rnm@foundationcenter.org. And have a good week!

-- The Editors

Survey: The State of Social Sector Leadership

Anyone in a position of leadership these days understands that organizations have a choice: disrupt or be disrupted. That's as true for nonprofits, foundations, public private partnerships, and social enterprises as it is for profit-seeking businesses.

To better understand how social sector leadership is changing, McKinsey & Company is inviting social sector leaders to participate in an online survey.

Among other things, the management consulting firm is interested in learning more about the attributes of high-performing social sector leaders -- what do they, and the peers they admire, excel in -- and how do they think their job descriptions will change over the next five to ten years. The firm also is interested in learning whether the sector is walking the talk when it comes to collaboration -- are social sector leaders committing their organizations to multi-stakeholder partnerships where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts and attribution and credit are shared -- or is their primary focus still on fundraising and media coverage for their organizations.

As Laura Callanan, who leads McKinsey’s Learning for Social Impact (LSI) initiative, notes: "There are a number of key trends affecting the social sector environment today which require successful leaders to have different strengths from what was important in the past. The social sector is a dynamic environment and a lot happens over a ten-year period." We couldn't agree more.

McKinsey will be sharing the results of the survey -- in the context of a broader "landscaping" it has developed on the state of funding, resources, and research on social sector leadership -- with all who participate later in the year.

To take the survey, click here.

[Infographic] Gender and Salary Inequity in the Nonprofit Sector

This week's infographic, courtesy of the TCC Group, looks at the troubling disparity in pay for men and women in the nonprofit sector.

Based on an analysis of data from a thousand nonprofits in a combined Core Capacity Assessment Tool (CCAT) and 990 dataset, the infographic shows that women in the sector make .75 for every $1 made by men; that women leaders tend to be more effective than their male counterparts; and that, in order to be paid equally, women have to perform better than men in a range of areas, including problem solving, creating organizational culture, and supporting the professional development of staff.

How is your nonprofit doing when it comes to equal pay for equal work? How is it doing on key indicators of organizational effectiveness? To find out, check out the CCAT on the TCC Web site.

No Truth or Consequences

(Mark Rosenman is an emeritus professor at the Union Institute & University and directs Caring to Change in Washington, D.C. You can read some of his other posts on PhilanTopic here, here, here, and here.)

Nonprofit leaders, as well as those in government and the corporate world, seem unwilling to accept responsibility for their decisions and actions. Recently, the founding president of Social Accountability International, a nonprofit that works to advance the human rights of workers around the world, failed to live up to her organization's name when she vaguely defended SAI's decision to award its highest certification to a Bangladesh garment factory that burned down just weeks after its most recent inspection, killing more than two hundred and sixty workers.

As in so many similar situations, instead of acknowledging responsibility for a mistake and accepting the consequences, leaders like the president of SAI are quick to lay that responsibility on others -- and then support only minimal consequences for those assigned the blame. The corporate world saw an example of this after one of the greatest environmental disasters in recent memory, the Deepwater Horizon blow-out that released nearly five million barrels of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico. Executives of BP, which had leased the rig and owned the rights to the undersea drilling site, remain free while two employees who were on the scene have been indicted for negligence related to the disaster.

Similarly, when it comes to the 2008 financial crisis and subsequent economic meltdown, corporate leaders who contributed mightily to the collapse have escaped responsibility for their wrongdoing. Not one top executive of Countrywide Financial, AIG, Lehman Brothers, Bear Sterns, or any other Wall Street firm has gone to jail, even as millions of Americans continue to suffer the economic consequences of their actions.

Sadly, politicians in Washington continue to ignore the interests of the American public and scramble instead to do the bidding of lobbyists and campaign contributors. Conservatives are bent on preserving low tax rates for their wealthiest supporters while cutting entitlements and programs for the middle class and neediest among us. Rather than raise taxes on the top two percent of income earners, a move favored by a significant majority of Americans, they would rather send the country over the fiscal cliff -- a combination of tax increases and draconian across-the-board spending cuts scheduled to take effect on January 2 -- or play chicken with the economic chaos of national default by vowing intransigence in the coming debate over extending the debt ceiling.

Other politicians are unwilling to even acknowledge their positions when it would be unpopular to do so. NBC reported that not one of the thirty-one pro-gun members of the U.S. Senate was willing to appear on "Meet the Press" following the recent Newtown school massacre to share his or her views on assault weapons or to address the consequences of past votes on gun legislation. CBS also reported that the nonprofit National Rifle Association and pro-gun politicians refused invitations to appear and acted as if they had no responsibility to explain their positions on this critical issue or to accept accountability for them.

Nonprofit executives in general have been shamefully absent from the fiscal debates, working mightily to preserve the charitable tax deduction in its current form while remaining silent on the larger and more consequential fiscal battles before us. Even the last-minute statement in support of higher taxes by one infrastructure group betrays the fact that it and other organizations have steadfastly refused pleas to get off the sidelines and advocate for policies that benefit the less advantaged in society; instead, these organizations poured precious resources into keeping the deduction as is.

What are we to think when nonprofit CEOs fail to lead and instead embrace self-interest -- both theirs and that of their members. What are we to think when they seem to forget that the public interest is more significantly and effectively served by government funded out of the public fisc than by privately funded groups.

A similar dynamic of unaccountable self-interest allows nonprofit university presidents to remain unchallenged in their cupidity. Even in modest-sized institutions, many command eye-opening salaries and benefits. Indeed, over twenty percent of university presidents in America earn in excess of $600,000 a year, with better than seven percent pulling in more than $1 million annually.

These university presidents and other administrators draw large salaries while higher education employs close to 750,000 workers on below-poverty wages. And while they ostensibly lead tax-exempt institutions, those institutions routinely fail to provide an affordable education or opportunities for upward mobility to low-income kids who desperately need both.

Out-sized financial compensation at the executive level is also a characteristic of many large health and cultural institutions as well as some social service charities. It's as if the executives of our largest nonprofits are determined to "get while the getting is good" rather than champion the public good that their institutions are supposed to deliver. To whom are they accountable?

Occasionally, albeit infrequently, responsibility and accountability is imposed from outside the sector. New York State's attorney general recently forced the president of one nonprofit, Educational Housing Services, to repay millions in excess compensation and other benefits achieved through "self-dealing" while also requiring board members to pay $1 million for their "stunning" negligence.

Punishment may also be meted out to Graham Spanier, the former president of Penn State University, in the Jerry Sandusky case. Spanier was indicted last month, joining other administrative colleagues also scheduled to be tried, for helping to establish and maintain a "culture of silence" surrounding years of child sexual abuse committed by Sandusky, a former coach attached to Penn State's renowned football program.

But such consequences are the rare exception.

Far more common is the tendency to blame and perpetuate an amorphous "institutional culture" for wrong or misguided actions. Too often, we fail to hold individuals to account for their sometimes criminal and/or selfish decisions and actions. Rather than demand accountability from those with personal responsibility, we act as if faceless institutions and organizations somehow cause abuse without human agency.

It's as if banks do wrong, not bankers. Corporations, not CEOs. Congress, not elected legislators. Charities, not board members or executives. We even talk of a sector's culture as if people are powerless to do anything but acquiesce -- often to their own benefit -- to dysfunctional practices that profit the individual over the common good.

It's time for it to stop. America has a serious problem with abuse, self-dealing, and lack of accountability in some of its most important institutions, including charitable ones. And while many are affected by these sometimes calamitous actions, the responsible individuals appear to face few meaningful consequences. That is wrong.

Too many nonprofits allow, even encourage, practices that further victimize those they should be serving. This is even more true in business and in politics. We're much more likely to lock up a street criminal than a corrupt executive -- although in most cases it's the latter who causes the greater harm. We need to change that.

Charity leaders should encourage and support efforts to hold one another accountable for serving the common good over private interests. Those efforts must extend to elected officials and other public leaders and to corporate executives. We need powerful and effective new mechanisms, both voluntary and regulatory, to accomplish this.

If we, as a society, don't insist on holding individuals accountable for their bad decisions and actions, it will continue to be others who suffer the consequences. That may be in the interest of elites, but it is of little benefit to the rest of us.

-- Mark Rosenman

Embracing the 'I' in Philanthropy

(Josh Baron is a partner at Banyan Family Business Advisors. This is his first post for PhilanTopic).

Over the last decade or so, there has been a movement to treat philanthropy more like business. Under this "new philanthropy" rubric, giving money to good causes is considered successful to the extent that it produces a measurable impact on society. While some fantastic success stories have emerged from this approach, overall it has yet to gain much traction among the world's leading philanthropists, who still often equate giving with altruism. For many, the value of philanthropy is somehow diminished if it is motivated by anything other than unadulterated altruism: if it's not pure, it's not worth doing.

This is a real tragedy. Focusing on the benefits that philanthropy creates solely for the good of society severely and unproductively limits its reach. In reality, the decision to spend time and money to promote the welfare of others is rarely driven by pure altruism. People may participate in philanthropy for a whole range of reasons: a desire to secure their legacy, burnish their reputation, create opportunities for their children, or increase the loyalty of their employees and customers.

There's nothing wrong with having multiple motivations. It doesn't mean one lacks a heartfelt desire to make a difference, and the value of the work isn't reduced by wondering: "What's in this for me?"

Indeed, we believe that society benefits most when people see value in philanthropy that goes beyond pure altruism. In these cases, philanthropists more often treat their giving as something that is core to their lives rather than something on the periphery, and as a result they tend to be extra generous, even when times are tough. Moreover, if the non-altruistic benefits of philanthropy can only be achieved by doing it well, then acknowledging an element of self-interest in one's giving is more likely to produce a powerful desire to do it as effectively as possible.

These are the findings, at any rate, that are emerging from our work on philanthropy with client families around the globe. For example, we are working with a prominent family in Southeast Asia that decided to substantially increase its philanthropic work because it saw how important that work was to keeping the country successful and stable. The family is deeply aware that if the country moves in a different political direction, its wealth could be appropriated by a new government. Thus, while the family has long been generous, it is determined to scale up its philanthropic activities. At the same time, it is increasingly important to the family that it be able to demonstrate that its philanthropic work is making a tangible difference to society. As a result, it has hired experts, conducted extensive best practice research across the region, and established measurable targets. Self-interest is not the family's only reason for giving -- family members have a genuine desire to improve a country they deeply love -- but it has been a powerful motivator in terms of bringing a new level of energy and rigor to the family's philanthropy.

Another family business we work with has seen how being philanthropic can have a meaningful impact on the bottom line. The family's business is focused on the working class, and the family came to see that a program aimed at meeting the needs of customers' communities could inspire more intense brand loyalty than a mere marketing campaign. The family also realized that employees were interested in participating in the program, which enabled the family to operate it at lower cost while gaining the added benefit of greater employee satisfaction. Neither benefit could be attained without a program that was producing positive results -- for the company's customers as well as its employees. And so, under the leadership of the CEO, family members developed a strategic plan for the program and established benchmarks for success that they now review on a monthly basis.

Philanthropy also can be used to create a legacy that goes beyond business. There are a number of examples where a business has been sold but the foundation attached to that business lives on, serving as a vehicle for sharing the story of the business, advancing the philanthropic values of the founder or founders, and helping to keep the family together across generations. We work with a client who built up a large business from scratch, was deeply grateful for his good fortune, and wanted to set up a foundation for exactly these reasons. That foundation will serve as a living monument to both his business acumen and his contributions to the community.

Lastly, many of our clients are recognizing the contributions that philanthropy can make in preparing a family business to transition leadership from one generation to the next. Foundations can help foster closer ties between the ownership group and the broader family. They are a place where members of the extended family -- employee and non-employee, blood relative or spouse -- can gain experience working together. If the foundation is focused on social causes, family members can discuss their values and learn about the meaning and responsibilities of wealth.

Family foundations are also places for developing talent and leadership within the next generation. Many younger family members are not interested in the family business, at least not at first. We have seen several instances, however, where a foundation served as a steppingstone to more engaged leadership within the business. Conversely, philanthropy can provide an avenue for a smooth transition of aging leaders out of the business. A philanthropic role can help those family members find purpose in the next stage of their lives and continue using their talents to advance the family’s legacy. None of these benefits can be realized unless a family treats its philanthropy as an important part of its business portfolio.

Some client families are understandably reluctant to talk about the mixed motivations that drive their philanthropy, while others openly acknowledge and embrace the "I" in philanthropy. In either case, we encourage families to think about their objectives and the full range of benefits that philanthropic work, done well, can deliver. Doing so will ensure that their philanthropy creates the greatest possible impact for society -- and delivers the many rewards that the thoughtful investment of time and money warrants.

-- Josh Baron

Weekend Link Roundup (November 10-11, 2012)

Our weekly roundup of new and noteworthy posts from and about the nonprofit sector....

Communications

In a guest post on the Communications Network blog, Philanthropy New York's Michael Hamill Remaley shares five lessons he learned from Superstorm Sandy about communications during and after a disaster:

1. A little bit of forethought and planning can make a big difference to your organization's ability to keep communicating during a disaster, and once your team has been through a disaster like Sandy, it'll have a much better idea of what to expect next time.
2. After disaster hits, be prepared to improvise. After the power grid for lower Manhattan went down, Remaley just started walking north from his apartment on the Lower East Side and kept walking until he was able to get a cell phone signal thirty-five blocks later.
3. Make sure you have personal e-mail addresses for all staff and that they are cloud-based like Gmail addresses.
4. To be an effective communicator during a crisis, you have to already have a loyal audience that follows you on a number of channels -- blogs, Web sites, Twitter, Facebook, etc.
5. When you have a great team of people who are determined to stay connected, you can find mechanisms to make it work. There are so many channels for communicating now that, unless there is absolutely no cell service at all, you can find ways of establishing two-way communication with your key audiences even amidst significant system disruptions.

Disaster Relief

On Blackbaud's new NPEngage blog, Steve MacLaughlin looks at how fundraising in support of Superstorm Sandy relief efforts compares to that of other recent natural disasters, from the Indian Ocean tsunami in 2004, to Hurricane Katrina in 2005, to the Japanese earthquake and tsunami in 2011. MacLaughlin says there are at least two aspects of Sandy giving to watch, including a rise in multi-screen fundraising and the long tail. "Giving to this and other disasters is going to continue for some time," writes MacLaughlin. "And very soon it will be important for organizations to start showing the impact these donations have had on those hit hardest by the storm."

Governance

On the Stanford Social Innovation Review blog, Measuring the Networked Nonprofit co-author Beth Kanter discusses how online social networking tools such as LinkedIn Board Connect make it easier for nonprofits to find the right people for their boards. "On LinkedIn, you can see past first connections, and check out a potential candidate's knowledge and their network," writes Kanter. "If all board members add their networks, this produces a richer set of potential candidates. And, remember, you are not just adding a board member to your team -- you are also adding their network."

Human Services

In time for Veterans Day, Matt Cifaldi, a community engagement associate at Idealist, gives a shoutout to a handful of nonprofits working to address the needs of veterans, from providing retirees with counseling and arts programs to matching them with a companion dog or cat.

Leadership

In a post on her blog, Rosetta Thurman reminds us that regardless of who was elected president, it's up to each of us to address the collective challenges we face by being engaged members of society. "No president can or will dramatically change our communities," writes Thurman. "We have to do that ourselves. It is important to stay rooted in the reality that WE have to work for the change we want to see...."

Nonprofit Management

On the Duck Call blog, Big Duck's Sarah Durham has some advice for underresourced nonprofits based on this year's presidential campaigns.

Philanthropy

And on her Philanthropy 2173 blog, Lucy Bernholz wonders who will be the Nate Silver of philanthropy and "put predictive analysis to the test in the social sector." Silver, of course, is the New York Times-employed "data scientist" whose election predictions based on an analysis of aggregated polling data turned out out to be uncannily accurate. Writes Bernholz:

Silver's analytic model relies on calculating the probability that each candidate will win based on the results of numerous state and national polls. The model is inherently dependent on the quality of each of those polls but it also benefits from the sheer number of polls done during a presidential election.

As individual foundations share more of their information in more userful ways, IssueLab catalogues and organizes the research that foundations and nonprofits do, independent analysts like GiveWell or users of the Nonprofit Finance Fund's FinancialSCAN tool, and local, state and federal agencies make more data available publicly we may be reaching the point where meta-analysis of others' research -- whether program evaluations, strategy plans, or needs assessments -- is possible and worth considering. We are slowly building the repository of raw material -- data that can be shared, compiled, compared and considered in the aggregate -- that makes such research feasible....

That's it for now. What did we miss? Drop us a line at rnm@foundationcenter.org. And have a great week!

-- The Editors

Weekend Link Roundup (October 27-28, 2012)

Our weekly roundup of new and noteworthy posts from and about the nonprofit sector....

Climate Change

Bridgespan Group manager Chris Addy says that if the federal government won't address climate change at the policy level, at-risk communities may need to rely on the generosity of private philanthropies like the San Diego Foundation for support. He goes on to list "five powerful pathways for philanthropic funders to invest in climate adaptation":

1. support local science and local scientists;
2. invest in neutral conveners;
3. build the field of climate adaptation;
4. re-frame adaptation around equity; and
5. support advocacy.

Leadership

On the Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation blog, David Grant, who was president and CEO of the foundation from 1998 to 2010, writes about a board leadership training in which he put off using the "a-word" -- assessment -- and asked the participants to envision what success for their organizations would look like in progressively specific terms. The participants discussed their answers with one another, then repeated the exercise but this time described what success would look like at an even higher level. Grant writes:

I was talking about building an assessment culture. And without using the word "rubric," the teams from each organization had begun to build one, as they discussed...what criteria they would [use to] measure success and began to meld together their visions of what success would look like at various levels. They were beginning to create a clear, specific, shared vision they could plan backwards from -- and one they could use to give and receive feedback in time for the feedback to be useful.

My contention has always been that the word "assessment" needs to be rehabilitated. We have all experienced assessment so many times in our lives...as something that comes at the end and judges our past performance that we have trouble assuming it could be something that happens all along and improves our performance. But it can be. Coaches know that. Teachers of performing arts know that. And leaders of nonprofit organizations can know it, too, once they establish some basic principles and some new habits with their colleagues....

Philanthropy

"How we use data, how we control our own data, how we respect the rights of others regarding their data -- these are defining issues for our age," writes Lucy Bernholz on her Philanthropy 2173 blog. "They are fundamentally questions about rights and power. Which means, somewhat ironically, they are questions for civil society and philanthropy (as well as government and business)...."

In the first installment of a new Deep Social Impact blog series, the Philanthropic Initiative's Ellen Remmer outlines some of the positive aspects of a family foundation -- it creates a family legacy, strengthens family bonds, and connects and educates the family about the larger world -- while acknowledging that this type of giving is not for every family.

In a guest post on the Idealist blog, Christine Egger shares a few takeaways from the 2012 Social Capital Markets conference, which this year addressed how the philanthropic sector can be "a valued partner in seeding and strengthening a social market that has yet to realize its full potential."

Transparency

And on the Foundation Center's Transparency Talk blog, David Hall-Matthews of Publish What You Fund shares findings from the 2012 Aid Transparency Index, which found "a slow but steady improvement in global aid transparency."

That's it for now. What did we miss? Drop us a line at rnm@foundationcenter.org. And be safe!

-- The Editors

Weekend Link Roundup (September 29-30, 2012)

Our weekly roundup of noteworthy posts from and about the nonprofit sector....

Impact/Effectiveness

In the Your Money section of the New York Times, Paul Sullivan takes a closer look at the burgeoning field of impact investing and, despite his skepticism, finds some things to applaud.

Beth Kanter highlights what she calls "a terrific round up of posts about 'big data for small nonprofits'" from Web-based software vendor Wild Apricot. At the same time, Kanter warns that jumping into the process of gathering, analyzing, and acting on data can be a waste of time for small nonprofits if they don't first take the time to define success.

On the Philanthropy Potluck blog, Kaitlin Ostlie of the Minnesota Council on Foundations shares a list compiled by Lauren Gilbert of BELL (Building Educated Leaders for Life) that details the "five hurdles beyond cost that nonprofits must address when going through a rigorous, independent research assessment."

Leadership

How to Become a Nonprofit Rockstar co-author Rosetta Thurman announces the release of her newest manifesto, which, according to Thurman, provides "a simple, accessible framework for thinking more deeply about 'new leadership for a new nonprofit sector.'"

Philanthropy

In the Huffington Post, Global Philanthropy Forum president and CEO Jane Wales considers the rise of strategic philanthropy in Asia.

Writing on the Philanthropic Initiative blog, Peter Karoff argues that "the first rule of all philanthropy is to do no harm." Writes Karoff:

One of TPI's most thoughtful donors likes to say: "The best way to ruin a good idea is to try to improve it!" Donors risk doing damage when they try to insert their opinion and will into a situation instead of deeply listening to those they want to help. Alan Broadbent, chair of Maytree in Toronto puts it this way: "If the gift isn't what the community wants, it isn't worth doing." Melinda Marble, deputy director at Barr Foundation, has long echoed this sentiment and advocated that "those at the center of the problem need be at the center of the solution...."

So what are the takeaways for donors?

• Listen carefully and sublimate your own opinion and ego;
• Ensure that the voice and needs of the community are being heard and served;
• Make sure there is a good plan in place for the use of the funds; and
• Consider the unexpected consequences of your actions.

In a guest post on the Patterson Foundation blog, consultant Veronica Taylor shares "promising practices for investing in disaster response and recovery," including "forgotten" emergencies that receive little attention.

What keeps nonprofit leaders awake at night? The Chronicle of Philanthropy shares findings from a recent Twitter survey which asked that question. Top concerns include financial matters, mission-related anxiety, staff and employee compensation issues, weak or ineffective boards, and evaluation and reporting.

Social Good

Writing in Fast Company, Ben Hecht, president and CEO of Living Cities, argues that while the future is already here for the mainstream global economy, the "social sector...continu[es] to operate in an increasingly outdated paradigm that places a premium on control; a reliance on experts and one-way communication flows; and exists purely in the physical world." He then looks at five trends that the sector needs to embrace if it truly hopes to be "transformational": mobile, social newtorks/media, Big Data, "frugal" innovation, and collaboration.

Social Media

In a guest post on the Communications Network blog, Jenn Whinnem, a communications officer at the Connecticut Health Foundation, writes about her and the Knight Foundation's Elizabeth Miller's efforts to launch a monthly " virtual tweet-up" -- a conference call of their social media peers in philanthropy. "We are more effective in our work when we have the opportunity to share our knowledge and experiences and think through challenges," Whinnem writes. To that end, the two also came up with a few ground rules for the monthly call:

• It's a safe space.
• The only requirement for participation is a spirit of generosity and regular engagement with social media as part of your work.
• The engagement with others continues after the call.
• The structure of each call is flexible enough to fit the needs of participants.

The Social Media Managers in Philanthropy Virtual Tweet-up is now looking to expand. To learn more about the group and how it can help you in your work, be sure to show up for the in-person tweet-up at the Communication Network's annual conference, October 10-12, in Seattle. And if you won't be in Seattle for the conference, feel free to reach out to Jenn (@jennwhinnem) or Elizabeth (@ElzbthMllr) on Twitter.

Transparency

Last but not least, on the Foundation Center's Transparency Talk blog, RWJF senior communications officer Susan Promislo explains how social media has changed her day-to-day work at the foundation, and how the foundation engages its online community to advance Forward Promise, a $9.5 million initiative that seeks to "improve the health, education, and employment outcomes for boys and young men of color."

That's it for now. What did we miss? Drop us a line atrnm@foundationcenter.org. And have a great week!

-- The Editors

Weekend Link Roundup (August 25-26, 2012)

Our (slightly delayed) weekly roundup of new and noteworthy posts from and about the nonprofit sector....

Environment

On NCRP's Keeping a Close Eye blog, Niki Jagpal commends the Kresge Foundation for a recent grant of $500,000 to Princeton-based Climate Central in support of efforts to provide decision makers and the public with information about future coastal flood exposure and sea level rise. "Kresge," writes Jagpal, "is leading the way by example: focusing specifically on socially vulnerable populations is precisely what environment and climate philanthropy expert Sarah Hansen recommends for environment and climate funders in Cultivating the Grassroots: A Winning Approach for Environment and Climate Funders."

Leadership

Philanthropy 411's Kris Putnam-Walkerly shares a post from Trista Harris, executive director of the Headwaters Foundation for Justice, in which Harris explains what an informational interview is for those "too embarrassed to ask."

Social Entrepreneurship

In a post on his Harvard Business Review blog, Uncharitable author Dan Pallotta discusses how he went from building Pallotta TeamWorks, one of the most successful charity event businesses in the country, to losing everything -- including four hundred full-time employees and sixteen U.S. offices -- after his biggest client jumped ship.

Social Media

On the NTEN site, social media vet Beth Kanter offers a few good Pinterest tools, tips, and resources, and gives a shout out in the process to Chris Sietsema's "advice about taking a birds' eye view of your organization's content to determine whether every bit of that content is integrated into an overall communications strategy. If a certain kind of content isn't, writes Sietsema, maybe it's time to abandon it.

Meanwhile, in a guest post on Kanter's own blog, Darren Barefoot of the Mountain Equipment Co-op discusses a recent digital collaboration with pop musician Sarah Harmer to raise awareness around threatened Canadian landscapes. Among other things, Barefoot suggests that nonprofits interested in adopting an "unorthodox" approach to a planned advocacy campaign can improve their chances of success by looking to the Web for examples of campaigns that have succeeded.

Technology

On the Knight Blog, Elizabeth Miller and Chris Sopher take a second look at a handful of Knight-funded digital technology projects designed to help Americans become more informed and engaged in the democratic process and introduce a new one: the SuperPAC App, which, through the use of audio fingerprinting technology, enables iPhone owners to find out which people and groups are behind presidential election TV ads. The post also mentions Politifact, which is developing tools to make its fact-checking information available on demand; TurboVote, which makes registering to vote "as easy as renting a Netflix DVD"; the Wesleyan Media Project, which "is monitoring the large amount of money expected to be spent on political advertising in the 2012 elections"; and the the Internet Archive's TV Research Database, a platform to make TV news content available and searchable in real time.

Transparency

And in a two-parter -- here and here -- on the Foundation Center's Transparency Talk blog, veteran nonprofit sector leader and muckraker extraordinaire Rick Cohen addresses the role of transparency in philanthropy and how foundations can do a better job of being transparent.

That's it for this week. What did we miss? Drop us a line at rnm@foundationcenter.org. And have a great week!

-- The Editors

Weekend Link Roundup (August 11-12, 2012)

Our weekly roundup of new and noteworthy posts from and about the nonprofit sector....

Communications/Marketing

Welcome to the Fifth Estate author Geoff Livingston has a list of tips for artists and writers seeking to brand and market themselves. The list includes:

• Focus on actions.
• Go beyond Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.
• Monitor social media conversations.
• Let your fans embrace your experience.

Disaster Relief

GiveWell's Holden Karnofsky shares findings from a recent evaluation of charities working to help people in Japan recover from the earthquake and tsunami that devastated the northeastern part of the country in 2011. After reviewing reports about their activities over the past twelve months, Karnofsky concludes that he and his partners "stand by the conclusions we reached last year: that the relief and recovery effort did not have room for more funding, that those interested in emergency relief should have donated to Doctors Without Borders, and that those determined to help Japan specifically should have donated to the Japanese Red Cross."

Diversity

On the Philanthropy Potluck blog, Wendy Wehr, vice president of communications and information services at the Minnesota Council on Foundations, reminds us that while gathering data to monitor diversity among foundation staff and boards is a critical step, organizations also must focus their attention on "turning data into knowledge, and then acting on that knowledge."

Leadership

Rosetta Thurman shares some helpful tips on plotting a guilt-free vacation.

Social Media

On the Foundation Center's Transparency Talk blog, our colleagues chat with Jane Lowe, senior program officer and team director of the Vulnerable Populations Portfolio at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, about how social media, and more broadly, the transparency and participation they offer, are adding critical new dimensions to [the foundation's] work.

Technology

Buzz Machine blogger Jeff Jarvis shares a few principles for news and technology companies trying to develop online platforms:

• Users come first. A platform without users is nothing. Screw your users, screw yourself.
• A platform is defined by its users. In other words: Hand over control to your users. Give them power. Design in flexibility.
• Platforms collaborate.
• Platforms need principles.

Transparency

"With all that they have at their disposal (money, expertise, networks, flexible time horizons, and reputation), foundations have a great opportunity to try lots of different ways to share information," writes Lucy Bernholz on her Philanthropy 2173 blog. "It's not as simple as having a publications arm or a communications officer or a learning office or a knowledge management strategy, but it's about using whichever of the above means/mechanisms fits the 'who' and the 'why'...."

That's it for now. What did we miss? Drop us a line at rnm@foundationcenter.org.

-- The Editors

Weekend Link Roundup (August 4-5, 2012)

Our weekly roundup of new and noteworthy posts from and about the nonprofit sector....

Communications/Marketing

In a guest post on the Communications Network blog, Dan Cohen and Edit Ruano offer five ideas for livening up your summer communications efforts.

1. Brainstorm with staff on how to engage your audience/community, and then delegate the implementation of those ideas to tap into staff creativity.
2. Program e-blasts; content could include previews of the work planned for the fall or reflections on your organization's previous accomplishments.
3. Write (or coordinate with grantees to write) op-eds about your organization's work before heading out on vacation.
4. Develop a schedule of pre-programmed social media content: at least one Facebook post and two or three tweets per week recommended.
5. Host a get-together with potential partner organizations and individuals to strengthen your networks and bring a fresh perspective to the work you do.

Kivi Leroux Miller highlights the evolution of one nonprofit's annual reports -- from more than twenty pages of financial details to four pages of accomplishments. In 2009 "[i]t was a lot more 'here's all the stuff we've done' vs 'here's what we accomplished,'" Katie Bryan, of Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, told Miller. In contrast, in 2011 "[w]e started out with the top accomplishments we had to share, then filled in images...and then worked the theme and letter around those."

Giving Pledge

Responding to the launch of the Foundation Center's Eye on the Giving Pledge site, NCRP's Kevin Laskowski commends our colleagues for "shining a light on an initiative that could bring important change to the sector." But he urges the center to take its commitment to transparency one step further by helping the public to see how the signatories are doing in terms of meeting their "stated obligation." Writes Laskowski:

Certainly, there are difficulties in doing this. For instance, how do we verify a signatory's gifts to public charities when these charities are not required to disclose their donors? Additionally, a person's net worth can fluctuate wildly over one's lifetime. For the purposes of the pledge, which net worth is to be used as the denominator, one's worth at the time of signing or upon one's death or what?...

It's important to ask how these men and women are doing. The answers might provide guidance and inspiration to new donors and potential signatories. How much are the signatories giving by amount and as a share of their wealth? Are most giving at or around 50 percent? How many are giving 80 or 90 percent? How many of them are planning to wait until death to make their largest distributions? Is the Giving Pledge spurring new giving, or are people pledging based on grants and plans they've already made? Might we be able to spur more and better giving faster if the signatories were essentially encouraged to compete with one another? I imagine the ensuing debate over what counted and how would be quite animated and illuminating....

 Leadership

The NonProfit Times has released its fiftienth annual Power and Influence Top 50 list. And, despite the generally positive reviews, more than a few people think the exercise is getting a little stale. The list "left out some amazing powerful and influential people in the sector mainly because these amazing and powerful people are NOT CEOs of national organizations," writes Heather Carpenter, an assistant professor in the School of Public, Nonprofit, and Health Administration at Grand Valley State University, on her blog. The solution? Maybe "there needs to be several versions of the...list that go beyond CEOs of national organizations" -- for example an "NPT Power and Influence: The Next Generation" list or an "NPT Power and Influence: Community and Grassroots" list.

On the Philanthropy Front and Center - Atlanta blog, Chanell Turner, a special initiatives intern in the Foundation Center's Atlanta office, shares some advice from Eli Broad's new memoir, The Art of Being Unreasonable, that will benefit most nonprofit leaders looking to up their game:

• Don't apologize for humble beginnings.
• Question the conventional wisdom.
• Embrace innovation.
• Enjoy your success but don't stop there.
• Don't just network within your circle.
• Do your homework.
• Set priorities, be disciplined but not rigid, and focus on what really matters.
• Don't be afraid to take risks.

Philanthropy

BlackGiveBack's Tracey Webb shares a video trailer for the Giving Back Project, a campaign organized by the New Generation of African American Philanthropists giving circle to re-frame philanthropy as something more than an activity "defined by great wealth and large monetary gifts."

In the Nonprofit Quarterly, Simone Joyaux pushes back against the notion that philantrocapitalism -- the application of business thinking and methods to social problems -- "will save the world" -- and gives a big shoutout to sometime PhilanTopic contributor Michael Edwards in the process. "Sure, philanthrocapitalism can make a difference. It can find cures for various diseases and produce jobs," writes Joyaux.

But that doesn't fix the systemic issues that confront our society -- things like greed and inequality, fear and prejudice, privilege and disadvantage. Edwards notes [in Small Change: Why Business Won't Save the World, "Few areas of business expertise translate well into the very complex social and political problems where solutions have to be fought for and negotiated -- not produced, packaged, and sold. And, so far at least, there aren't many philanthrocapitalists who are prepared to invest in the challenges of long-term institution building, the deepening of democracy, or the development of a different form of economy in which inequality is systematically attacked...."

Transparency

"I think autonomy (and therefore diversity) of foundations with regards to mission and method is a good thing. It makes our society richer and more resilient, just as an ecology with more variation in plants and animals is more robust under stress than one with less biodiversity," writes Chris Langston, program director at the John A. Hartford Foundation, on the Foundation Center's Transparency Talk blog. "Still, I wonder -- what does a foundation owe to the broader society that grants it both tax advantages and this autonomy? In addition to our own commitment to be serious about our work, I think we should also commit to transparency. If we are open about our governance, finances, policies, and processes, we show that we are open to feedback. We are also more likely to adhere to our own standards simply by virtue of knowing that others know our goals."

That's it for this week. What did we miss? Drop us a line at rnm@foundationcenter.org

-- The Editors

Why 'Risk' Is An Unloved Word in Philanthropy

(Derrick Feldmann is the CEO of Achieve, an Indianapolis-based consulting firm that works with nonprofits. In his previous post, he cautioned organizations to think twice about flying the "innovation" flag.)

"There are risks and costs to a program of action, but they are far less than the long-range risks and costs of comfortable inaction."

 -- John F. Kennedy

Whenever I visit my financial advisor, he almost always gets around to talking about risk. The subject usually comes up when I ask him how I can increase the value of my portfolio. His response is almost always the same. "What's your tolerance for losing money?" He always has ideas for new investments, but he's quick to point out that many aren't "sure bets." Anyone seeking bigger investment returns in this environment -- and lucky enough to have discretionary resources to invest in the first place -- has played this game at one point or another.

So why are risky investments something most of us are willing to tolerate in our personal financial lives, but something we avoid like the plague in our philanthropic work?

The answer is simple: We're afraid to make risky philanthropic investments because we don't want to "lose" money.

As funders and donors, we've grown accustomed to making investments in organizations we know will succeed. They have a history, proven track records, and staff and leadership that can execute. Pressure from boards and other stakeholders who view philanthropic investments only through the lens of success contributes to this predictability. Typically, these stakeholders are most concerned about protecting the corpus and in signing off on decisions that won't get them into trouble. This isn't all bad. It ensures, among other things, that people in need will be helped, especially during times when they need it most. But as an investment approach, it does little to encourage innovation.

Think about your own work for a minute and ask yourself the following questions:

• What is the riskiest grant we ever made?
• What was our motivation for making that grant?
• How many times have we given a grant to an organization that didn't have a track record of success?
• How much money are we willing to set aside to fund riskier initiatives?

If you're like a lot of program officers, it may not be easy to think of a grant you made that could be classified as "risky." But you need look no further than your own personal giving for examples of risky philanthropic investments. Indeed, we make these kinds of investments every time we support a friend, colleague, or family member in a run/walk/race for a medical cause or cure. As a country, we invest more than $20 billion a year to find cures for diseases such as cancer, Alzheimer's, and stroke. And those investments are "risky" because there's very little measurable return on our donations short of a cure or significant new discovery. But we choose to fund this type of research anyway, knowing that most failures in the lab bring us closer to the ultimate goal.

Unfortunately, many problems today -- whether social, environmental, or economic -- are every bit as large and complicated as finding the cure for cancer. And the only way we're going to solve them is to take our approach to medical research and apply it to other areas. In other words, we need funders and individual donors who are truly willing to embrace risk and invest significant dollars in potential solutions that may not yield immediate results but get us closer to our ultimate objective, even if it's only by demonstrating what doesn't work.

Here are four things I believe philanthropy can and should do in order to embrace more risk.

Emulate the founders. On the road to building great fortunes, the founders of some of the biggest foundations in the country took risk almost every day of their professional and business lives. Whether they played a leading role in forging the modern steel or oil industry, made it easy for people to use a computer or reap the benefits of globalized supply chains, or created online social networks that connected the world, our greatest entrepreneurs and philanthropists were great risk-takers who never lost sight of their objective: To deliver the most value to the greatest number of consumers. That's precisely the kind of entrepreneurial spirit we need today as we look to provide and fund solutions to the most intractable problems affecting our communities.

Set aside funds for riskier ventures. If foundations were for-profit companies and had to compete in the marketplace, they almost certainly would rush to set up research and development arms with a mandate to innovate, develop new programs and initiatives, and evaluate how existing programs and initiatives were performing. But as endowed tax-exempt entities, foundations rarely have to compete and so have little incentive to set aside funds to invest in anything other than proven organizations and concepts. Now, I get that foundations and donors can't fund every risky investment and innovation that comes along. But I'm convinced that they can and should begin to pool and earmark funds for investments in organizations and concepts that don't have a track record of success but do have potential to bring about dramatic change in our communities.

Ask new questions. Donors and foundations need to start asking new questions when a risky investment presents itself. Instead of the historical "proven impact" questions typically posed during the proposal and due-diligence stages, funders should focus on questions designed to help them understand the level of risk involved in the proposed idea or solution. Questions like:

• Why is this a risky concept/approach?
• Why is your approach to the problem better than existing approaches?
• What's the worst that could happen if you fail?
• Even if you fail, what do you hope to learn from the approach you're proposing?
• Who are the experts/mentors you look to for guidance in your work and what do they have to say about the approach/concept?
• If the approach/concept demonstrates success, how do you plan to sustain it?

Foster new learning environments. As a funder, you have a tremendous opportunity to be transparent about grants and programs that worked -- as well as those that didn't. Here's your chance to create a learning opportunity -- indeed, a learning community -- for social entrepreneurs and innovators. Share your knowledge about the grants you made, the internal reports that tracked the progress of those grants, and why the investments you made did, or did not, succeed. Take it a step further and create a forum on your Web site where grantees can come together and learn from each other about what worked and didn't. At a minimum, it will help them think about new approaches to their existing work and perhaps lead to new ideas that you may want to support in the future.

There you have it. Let's create a philanthropic marketplace where risk is celebrated, not avoided, and serves to bring us closer to solving some of the biggest challenges we face. History invariably shows that if we give good ideas a platform and a chance to succeed, they will. The sooner we get over our aversion to risk and instead support those individuals and organizations willing to think outside the box, the sooner we'll prove history right.

-- Derrick Feldmann

 

Weekend Link Roundup (July 14-15, 2012)

Our weekly roundup of new and noteworthy posts from and about the nonprofit sector....

Communications/Marketing

Network for Good's Katya Andresen shares a list of thirteen signs your Web site might be out of date. The list, which was originally posted on the Branded Out Loud blog, includes:

• The calendar widget on your site resembles an actual calendar;
• "WELCOME" appears anywhere on your site;
• There are more than eight menu options or drop-downs with their own drop-downs; and
• Stock photos on your site are not connected to your organization's mission, or the photos don't load properly.

Impact/Effectiveness

On the Huffington Post Impact blog, Global Philanthropy Group president Trevor Neilson has three recommendations for nonprofits worried that it's only a matter of time before the economy -- and their fundraising results -- take a turn for the worse: think "different" about fundraising; decide what not to do; and value performance over passion.

Guest blogging on Beth's blog, GreatNonprofits chief executive Perla Ni and Family Independence Initiative vice president Mia Birdsong discuss the importance of listening and responding to feedback from the people being served by your nonprofit. "With a good feedback system in place programs can be held accountable to those they serve," write Ni and Birdsong. "Consumers will see that their voices make a difference when programs are adjusted and measures of success redefined in response to feedback....Nonprofits will benefit from detailed information about program strengths and shortcomings....And everyone wins when programs become more efficient and effective, improving program quality and outcomes."

Leadership

Rosetta Thurman, co-author of How to Become a Nonprofit Rockstar (with Trista Harris), has a few suggestions for young nonprofit professionals on how "to handle slip-ups with maturity in the nonprofit workplace."

Nonprofit Management

In the latest installment of her Social Good podcast series, Allison Fine chats with former Apple creative director Ken Segall, author of Insanely Simple: The Obsession That Drives Apple's Success, about how nonprofits can "create a culture of simplicity in their organizations."

Philanthropy

in an e-mail to Council on Foundation members and colleagues, Vikki Spruill, the council's new president and CEO, shares her vision for organized philanthropy. "Philanthropy has a proud legacy and an awe-inspiring focus on the future," Spruill writes,

but its most critical moment is right now. At a time when our world faces a storm of converging challenges with dwindling resources, philanthropy's positive impact remains a mystery to far too many. Swirling through this storm is a lack of understanding about the role philanthropy plays in society as investor, innovator, leader, and partner. Yet we all know philanthropy is more relevant and necessary than ever. That's why we must seize the imperative to help society better understand philanthropy's impact and contributions. If we can't imagine a world without philanthropy, we need to make sure those outside our sector recognize what an unlivable world that would be....

Poverty

The folks at liberal think tank Demos have posted a series of charts that break down the poverty rate in America by race, gender, education, age, and family type and finds that it's highest among single female-headed households with kids -- a fact explored with great skill and empathy by this article in today's New York Times.

Social Innovation

On the Social Velocity blog, Nell Edgington shares ten great social innovation reads from the month of June. We agree with Nell: Better late than never.

Strategy

On FSG's Social Impact Blog, Rebecca Graves explains why strategic clarity is important for community foundations. "Community foundations wrestle with an incredible array of decisions about how best to support their communities, advance solutions to complex social problems, and craft the right role for themselves," writes Graves. "[And] disciplined strategic thinking is essential to address these challenges. It helps [community foundations] articulate a clear and unique identity, become more aligned in pursuit of [their] goals, and define the right types of growth...."

Transparency

And on the Center for Effective Philanthropy blog, CEP president Phil Buchanan suggests that the philanthropic sector is unlikely to "make real progress on meaningful transparency -- transparency that gets to effectiveness and improvement -- externally until we deal with the challenge of being transparent first at home, with staff and colleagues...."

That's it for now. What did we miss? Drop us a line at rnm@foundationcenter.org.

-- The Editors

Weekend Link Roundup (June 23-24, 2012)

Our weekly roundup of new and noteworthy posts from and about the nonprofit sector....

Collaboration

On the Deep Social Impact blog, Maureen O'Brien discusses the unique role each generation has to play in cross-sector collaborations. "Younger generations shouldn't underestimate the valuable knowledge and wisdom of the people who have been in this field for years. It is their work that has brought the sector to where it is today," writes O'Brien. "At the same time, older generations must not dismiss the ideas and innovative potential solutions that their younger colleagues suggest. It is their work that will help scale innovation and move the field to places never before imagined."

Communications/Marketing

On her Nonprofit Communications blog, Kivi Leroux Miller is asking for comments on a chart (thumbnail above) that illustrates a dozen ways in which having a content strategy is immeasurably better than not having a content strategy. Good stuff.

In a two-minute video on the Communications Network blog, Lee Rainie, director of the Pew Research Center's Internet & American Public Life Project, shares his thoughts about how the changes wrought by the Internet on society are also causing foundations to rethink and retool how they communicate with external audiences.

Getting Attention's Nancy Schwartz shares findings from a recent Nonprofit Messages Survey which found that "76 percent of nonprofit marketers and fundraisers...say their key messages are irrelevant to the people who need to hear them to be motivated or reminded to act." That's a serious problem, writes Schwartz, but one that can be fixed.

Fundraising

On the Social Velocity blog, Nell Edgington follows up on a post from January with "nine more ways board members can raise money without fundraising.

Leadership 2.0

On the Atlantic's Educating the Workforce of Tomorrow blog, Amy Southerland discusses the benefits and pitfalls of managing a virtual team. Among other things, writes Southerland, "virtual teamwork layers new challenges on top of the inherent challenges of teamwork, and the skills required do not come easily or automatically." To hone those skills, Southerland suggests that workers of all ages gain "higher-order digital skills in addition to familiarity with devices and applications" by taking "online courses, including hybrid classes where most of the coursework takes place virtually with less frequent in-person meetings.

Philanthropy

In the sixth and final installment of a six-part series, Center for Effective Philanthropy president Phil Buchanan asks: Why do those who work in the nonprofit sector put corporations on a pedestal? Yes, many companies do good every day, writes Buchanan. "But we also need to speak up -- much, much more forcefully --

for the nonprofit sector's distinct role and relevance. For this, too, is a defining strength of our country. We need to point to the historic and present day examples of foundations and nonprofits that make communities stronger, people healthier, and our environment cleaner....

On NCRP's Keeping a Close Eye blog, Aaron Dorfman announces the first anniversary of the organization's Philanthropy's Promise campaign, an effort to get as many large foundations as possible to allocate at least 50 percent of their grant dollars to the needs of marginalized groups and at least 25 percent to high-impact strategies such as advocacy, community organizing, and civic engagement. In the past year, a hundred and twenty-five foundations have signed on to the campaign, and in his post Dorfman highlights a few of the public statements they have made in support of the campaign.

On the Open Society Foundations' blog, Elizabeth Eagen, a joint program officer for the Information Program and Human Rights and Governance Grants Program, warns of an increase in physical and digital security threats to nongovernmental organizations and activists. Writes Eagen:

Though there has been a great deal of interest in digital security and secure communications training in the past few years, in fact, the process of uncovering an organization's susceptibility to digital attacks often reveals a whole host of other security and organizational issues. If we treat one type of threat while ignoring others, we miss an opportunity to promote long-lasting and resilient strategies....

While admitting that solutions are few and costly, Eagen calls on funders to keep in mind that "[f]unding and approaches in security need to be both incremental and tailored to work with the work of the institution" and to make all forms of security part of the support they [provide] to NGOs through information sharing; funding practice rather than tools; and being proactive.

That's it for now. What did we miss? Drop us a line at rnm@foundationcenter.org. And have a great week!

-- The Editors