PhilanTopic

How Collaborative Learning Can Make Organizations Smarter, Stronger, and Better Positioned to Scale: A Q&A with Andrew Wolk and Wendy Yallowitz

Andrew Wolk is founder of Root Cause,
a nonprofit research and consulting firm that partners with nonprofits, philanthropy, government, and business to advance solutions to today's toughest social issues, and Wendy Yallowitz is a program officer with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's Vulnerable Populations Portfolio, which supports social innovations with the potential to grow to scale. For almost two years, Root Cause helped guide RWJF grantee More Than Wheels, a Boston-based nonprofit that helps people get the best deal on a reliable and fuel-efficient car, through a facilitated merger exploration with Ways to Work, a Milwaukee-based community development financial institution that provides short-term low-interest loans to working poor families with challenging credit histories -- a merger that ultimately failed to materialize. From the process, however, Root Cause and RWJF developed a "collaborative learning" framework that allowed both organizations to learn from each other and emerge with stronger, smarter strategies than they would have on their own. The lessons learned are available in "Collaborative Learning: A Case Study on More Than Wheels and Ways to Work," which is available as a as a downloadable PDF from the RWJF site bookstore.

In the following Q&A, Andrew and Wendy shed light on how collaborative learning turned a failed merger exploration into a success. A version of this post originally appeared on the Foundation Center's Transparency Talk blog.

Transparency Talk: What is collaborative learning, and what are its origins?

Andrew Wolk: It's an intentional effort between two organizations to exchange, analyze, and apply knowledge that will lead to better outcomes. More specifically, collaborative learning is a structured, facilitated learning process that allows for in-depth knowledge exchange without the organizational and cultural challenges of mergers. Based on a four-step framework, the process can serve as an alternative to merger discussions -- or a "plan B" in the middle of merger talks that aren't working out.

Wendy Yallowitz: It's a good time for this type of framework. When you consider how nonprofits continue to grow in number and are continually asked to do more with less, it's more common for foundations to encourage similar organizations to figure out whether there's a way to optimize resources. Hence, we're seeing more merger explorations like the one we pursued with More Than Wheels and Ways to Work.

AW: As for origins, this potential merger brought about the framework. We know from past experience merger talks can present huge barriers, and we were running into some of those things. At a certain point, we decided to take an approach whereby we lifted the pressure of mergers or formal collaborations and partnerships as expectations so that the two organizations could work together to solve problems and grapple with strategic questions.

TT: What are the benefits of collaborative learning?

AW: Collaborative learning can accelerate knowledge very quickly in a resource-efficient way, provided both organizations are mutually investing in sharing and learning. We built the framework around four phases, starting with an assessment of need wherein you ask whether it would be beneficial to look inside another organization to address your own challenges. You have to be willing to look inward at your own gaps in knowledge and share information. So right off the bat, entering this phase pushes you to evolve in some way.

From there you move to establishing trust and facilitation by a neutral third party, which entails conversations, adherence to a collaborative learning scope of work, and relying on a facilitator to help set and make progress against goals. Next is an in-depth exchange and analysis of knowledge -- in the case of More Than Wheels and Ways to Work, that involved an immersive exchange of client profiles, program and financial models, and how success is measured. Last up is application of knowledge to challenges faced, which involves applying what you learned to the challenges that originally brought you to the table and perhaps other areas.

WY: What ended up being really key was facilitation of the learning. If you really want it to work and be more than just an information-gathering exercise, you need a facilitator. Root Cause was able to pull out themes and lessons by asking, "What did we learn from this?" They ensured ideas and opportunities would be carried out.

TT: How does collaborative learning relate to scaling?

WY: This is about scaling impact collaboratively, working with a similar organization that also wants to grow beyond its challenges. For example, as a result of these conversations, Terri [Steingrebe, CEO of More Than Wheels] was able to look at her strategy and see more than one way to scale More Than Wheels. Their initial model was to open physical offices where they saw a need, and that's evolved after assessing Ways to Work's affiliate model. Through a new partnership-based model, More Than Wheels can increase the number of people they serve without needing to establish a new client base in new communities or set up new offices. All in all, they expect to lower per-client costs by 40 percent.

Likewise, Ways to Work gained appreciation for More Than Wheels' one-on-one consumer counseling and financial education and went on to establish an online financial education course for clients, set higher expectations for financial fitness and education before loan approval, and -- based on More Than Wheels' success -- increased loan amounts beyond original estimates.

TT: Why should funders consider supporting grantees interested in participating in collaborative learning?

WY: RWJF has worked to connect grantees interested in talking about opportunities to work together, but collaborative learning adds a layer of purpose, with goals and outcomes very much part of the mix. So, at the end of the day, we see this as a long-term cost-effective way to build capacity among those grantees for whom this is an appropriate option. And funding the process, of course, contributes greatly to providing the resources needed to explore a merger and engage in collaborative learning.

A by-product of this process was building trust with our grantee. I encouraged Terri to have the conversation but did not push her to merge -- that was never a rigid expectation. She never felt awkward coming to me with honest feedback. It helped me gain a real appreciation for the collaborative learning process.

AW: What we're seeing is more organizations that want to learn from each other. We believe there’s a fundamental culture beginning to build around performance for impact. The nonprofit sector should be having these conversations because, in the end, it's about whether there's impact.

TT: Thanks for sharing the case study. Potential mergers and collaborations are often shrouded in secrecy, and the same is true of failed foundation experiments. Why do you think it's important to bring these efforts to light?

WY: RWJF has long been committed to sharing the results of our work with the field, whether those results represented success or failure. We release grantee results reports and evaluation findings as a matter of routine, but I agree that process results such as those stemming from merger and collaboration attempts often are not approached with the same spirit of transparency. In this case, the deep exchange of information about the models we were looking to merge resulted in a wealth of learnings, including important signals that a merger might not be the right fit for either group. That wasn't viewed as a loss or a wasted effort; rather, it opened our eyes to new possibilities for each group in terms of their models and growth strategies. And wWe believe it's important to share those learnings widely in hopes they prove to be of value to other funders and nonprofits that are wrestling with the challenges associated with growing to scale.

-- Natasha Isajlovic-Terry

Nonprofits and Disaster Response: 5 Questions for Gary Bagley, Executive Director, New York Cares

(Laura Cronin is a regular contributor to PhilanTopic. Recently, she asked Gary Bagley, executive director of New York Cares, the city's largest volunteer organization, about the organization's work with local nonprofit partners in response to Superstorm Sandy.)

Laura Cronin: City workers -- first responders, firefighters, transit workers, sanitation workers -- labored around the clock to restore critical systems in New York City that were overwhelmed by the storm surge created by Sandy. Alongside them were thousands of residents who provided volunteer support to victims of the storm and chipped in to clean up affected areas. Creative responses such as Occupy Sandy's  online registry and local groups like the Red Hook Initiative were part of a rapid, largely decentralized nonprofit response to the storm. Your organization has a long history of rallying volunteers and partnering with the leading nonprofits in the city, in ordinary times as well as in times of crisis. What did your Sandy response look like?

Gary Bagley: New York Cares has a Memorandum of Understanding with the New York City Office of Emergency Management through which we are responsible for mobilizing volunteers in response to disasters. So beyond the eight thousand volunteers who signed up to help, we had three full-time staff members stationed at the OEM as well as other staff fielding calls and e-mails from organizations and individuals that needed assistance. But because many nonprofits, schools, and faith-based organizations were as hard hit as residents of low-lying areas, we had to go beyond our traditional collaborative program delivery model. In the hardest-hit locations in Staten Island and Queens, we had teams of New York Cares staffers assessing -- on foot and by car -- local needs. At the same time, our volunteers canvassed neighborhoods, distributed food, and started on the debris cleanup. Now, a few weeks into the recovery, we see that much of the work will be about providing social services, from reading programs at libraries to adult education programs, in the most heavily impacted areas. Helping neighborhoods thrive again will be about much more than cleanup efforts.

LC: Many nonprofits in the city moved downtown in recent years in pursuit of lower rents and/or to take advantage of various incentives and rebates put in place by the city after 9-11. Indeed, New York Cares has an office near Wall Street. What was the effect of the power, heat, and Internet outages that hit lower Manhattan following the storm on your operations and on the operations of your partners?

GB: We never wanted to test our disaster-response plan, but we sure were glad we had one! The Thursday and Friday before Sandy came ashore, we reviewed our disaster-response procedures, from backup e-mail systems to phone trees to remote meeting locations. So, luckily, we were able to work remotely while we waited for power to be restored to our offices at 65 Broadway. But even after the electricity came back on, we were without phones for another two weeks. Our on-call phone service -- a cell number that our main line was forwarded to -- received a hundred and fifty calls a day in the immediate aftermath of the storm. We also have three staff members responding to e-mails submitted to our general information address (info@newyorkcares.org), and on any given day in the last few weeks they've had a queue of more than two hundred e-mails waiting to be answered.

LC: What do you think New York City nonprofits will need as we move past the immediate relief effort and really get into the hard work of recovery and rebuilding? And what role can volunteers play?

GB: The hard truth is that, post-Sandy, nonprofits will need what they've always needed: resources, both financial and human. And they'll need more of them. The recovery effort will extend far beyond physical rebuilding; the need for social services in the hardest-hit areas is already apparent, and volunteers will be key to helping organizations that were severely compromised by the storm ramp up their efforts. It's also important to note that nonprofits that were fortunate to escape the storm's wrath are feeling the impact. I've heard, to give you an example, that a lot of food banks in Manhattan are running short of supplies because so much food has been redirected to neighborhoods in Queens and on Staten Island.

LC: The storm made landfall early Monday evening. Two days later, I found myself in a church basement responding to a New York Cares/City Meals on Wheels tweet for volunteers. I don't regularly volunteer with either group, but through Twitter I found one of your projects. What role did social media play in mobilizing volunteers?

GB: As a tool for filling projects, social media was a pleasant surprise to me. We had some of our tweets mentioned in real time on a local newscast, filled projects like yours in record time, and even helped get four hundred blankets to a housing development that had lost heat and electricity within four hours of the initial tweet. Social media worked in a situation where there wasn't the type of lead time that day-to-day programming requires, and I'm already asking myself how we might use that kind of rapid response capability in our non-disaster programming.

LC: Governor Cuomo made headlines when, in one of his many press conferences in the days after the storm, he quipped, "We have a hundred-year flood every two years now." What kind of resilience planning are your nonprofit partners doing? And how can funders and volunteers help?

GB: At a recent meeting of nonprofits convened by the Staten Island Foundation, the number-one concern mentioned was "planning for the next disaster." As you know, it's tremendously difficult to raise money for infrastructure improvements and the development of disaster-preparedness plans and backup systems. During this disaster we've seen how critical it is that frontline nonprofits get back on their feet as quickly as possible in order to serve the additional clients created by the disaster as well as those who needed assistance before the event. Beyond the capital needed to develop these plans as well as repair damage to buildings, nonprofits may require skills and expertise that don't exist in-house. In both instances, volunteers can help fill the gap. Our volunteers have provided everything from translation services to IT consulting. Volunteers are not a substitute for full-time staff members, but they are a wonderful means of extending the reach of an organization. And a dedicated volunteer with skills, for example in the HR or IT area, can help build the systems for managing the additional and rapidly changing workload after a disaster.

-- Laura Cronin

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

Whither Livestrong? 5 Questions for...Leslie Lenkowsky

After years in the public eye, first as a world-famous athlete who won the grueling Tour de France, the crown jewel of international cycling, a record seven consecutive times, and subsequently for his central role in a still-unfolding doping scandal, American Lance Armstrong, a cancer survivor, resigned on Wednesday as chairman of Livestrong, the cancer charity he founded some fifteen years ago. Hours later, Nike, one of Armstrong's biggest sponsors, dropped him as a spokesperson -- and was soon joined by half a dozen other Armstrong sponsors.

Earlier today, PND spoke with Leslie Lenkowsky, professor of public affairs and philanthropic studies at the Indiana University School of Public and Environmental Affairs, about the Armstrong scandal and its likely effect on Livestrong. Lenkowsky, who writes and speaks frequently about nonprofit management and governance issues, has served as a researcher at the American Enterprise Institute, as president of the Hudson Institute and the Philanthropy Roundtable, and as CEO of the Corporation for National and Community Service.

Philanthropy News Digest: Which surprises you more: Lance Armstrong's decision to step down as chair of Livestrong, formerly known as the Lance Armstrong Foundation, or the fact he waited till now?

Leslie Lenkowsky: That he waited until now. In fact, leadership of the organization has been passing from him to others for quite a long time. Stepping down now inevitably makes his decision look like it's related to the doping accusations. Since he is planning to stay on the board, he would have done better to make the transition earlier. But in many nonprofits, founders have a way of staying a bit too long.

PND: Close association with a celebrity can be a slippery slope for an organization, especially when the celebrity's name is on the letterhead. Do you think Livestrong's efforts to broaden its appeal beyond Armstrong will be enough to keep it from seeing a significant drop in its revenues?

LL: Yes. Livestrong has a very diversified base of support, lots of members and chapters, good national partners, and, most importantly, a well-developed set of programs. It has long since outgrown its association with Armstrong, and while his troubles may weaken his value for the organization's events and in other ways, they won't produce a significant drop in revenues.

PND: What does Livestrong need to do to minimize the damage from its association with Armstrong?

LL: Continue doing what it has been doing: creating a strong nonprofit organization. Strong and clearly independent board leadership is especially important right now.

PND: This year, we've seen two major funders of cancer research, Livestrong and Susan G. Komen for the Cure, take very public hits in the media. Will the negative publicity around Livestrong and Komen affect the work and reputations of other cancer-related organizations?

LL: No. Cancer is a serious problem that affects large numbers of Americans. The problems of Komen were very different from those Livestrong has faced, and the organizations themselves operate differently from others in the field. So, I don't see a spillover effect.

PND: Will Lance Armstrong ever again be an effective spokesperson for Livestrong and cancer research more generally?

LL: Yes. Despite the accusations of his using performance-enhancing drugs, Armstrong did, in fact, survive cancer -- remember, at the time he was diagnosed his treatment was very experimental -- and he has gone on to live a productive life. Even if his victories are now tainted, having competed in the Tour de France at all is no small accomplishment for a cancer survivor. That is Livestrong's core message, and he still embodies it.

-- Matt Sinclair

5 Ways to Engage Finance Professionals in Pro Bono Service

(The following post by Aaron Hurst, president of the Taproot Foundation, was adapted from Powered by Pro Bono: The Nonprofits Step-by-Step Guide to Scoping, Securing, Managing, and Scaling Pro Bono Resources. In his previous post, Hurst weighed in on the value of "pre-mortems.")

Nonprofit economics differ pretty significantly from the for-profit kind. For one thing, tools like a balance sheet or a profit-and-loss statement don't carry nearly as much weight in a not-for-profit setting as they do in the business world. Nonprofit organizations also have to follow specific rules and regulations related to their tax-exempt status. Despite these differences, nonprofits are learning how to boost their capacity and effectiveness by engaging accounting and finance professionals in their work. The fact that there are some 1.8 million accounting and finance professionals in the U.S., and that many of them are looking for ways to make an impact in their communities, is a huge plus for the sector.

With that in mind, here are five things finance and accounting professionals often are willing to do for nonprofits on a pro-bono basis:

1. Program-cost analysis. A program-cost-analysis project identifies the cost initiatives a nonprofit must define in order to answer a pressing strategic question. The first phase of any such project involves an in-depth examination of an organization's current finances to tease out cost factors relevant to those initiatives. After that, a comprehensive report which clearly lays out the full costs of taking on a particular initiative is prepared.

2. Internal financial controls assessment. Rigorous assessment of an organization's financial controls ensures that it is consistently recording financial transactions in an accurate fashion. These controls also help to minimize risk, including employee theft. The first step in developing an effective internal controls system is to identify areas where abuses or errors are likely to occur. Many accountants can provide you with a checklist of these areas, as well as questions to consider when you are planning your system.

3. Budgeting. A well-designed budget process can help an organization and its management zero in on key financial issues and potential problems before they have major consequences, enabling the organization to move from reactive to proactive resource management. The end result of such a process should be a budget that allows key stakeholders to track the status of the organization's finances in real-time; enables managers to track actual performance against plan; and allows for quick adjustments to meet changing economic conditions.

4. Pricing strategy. Pricing strategy projects look at the value of a specific product or service. Since price directly affects revenues (price x quantity sold = revenue) and, therefore, profitability (total revenue - total costs = profit), a good place to start when developing a pricing strategy is to determine unit costs. While nonprofits rarely are driven by the bottom line, net income is crucial to organizational sustainability. Therefore, any pricing strategy project should incorporate a method to calculate the real costs associated with the product or service delivered so as to ensure a sufficient level of net income.

5. Supply chain audit. The planning, purchasing, manufacturing, marketing, and distribution functions embedded in a supply chain often operate independently of one another and have their own objectives. With an eye to identifying opportunities for increasing efficiencies and better integrating these different functions, a supply chain audit looks at every step in the chain, from the procurement of the materials needed to create a product, to the process by which those materials are turned into a finished product, to the distribution of the product to customers/beneficiaries. The result, quite often, is better performance and lower costs for the nonprofit.

The nonprofit executive often has to act as CEO, CFO, COO, talent manager, and marketing director at the same time. Juggling these roles is tricky at best, but when the organization reaches a certain scale or ambition, taking a closer look at its financial health becomes critical. Identifying key financial needs is the first step to scoping projects and developing specific "asks." Accounting and finance professionals do these things everyday, and many are looking for ways to make an impact. The most effective leaders will do what they can to take advantage of this pro bono resource.  

-- Aaron Hurst

[Review] 'Charity Case: How the Nonprofit Community Can Stand Up for Itself and Change the World'

(Chuck Bartelt is electronic grant information liaison at the Foundation Center. You can read some of her other reviews here, here, here, and here.)

I'm about to shock you. Twice.

First, did you know that telemarketing firms that solicit donations for charitable causes typically keep 90 percent of the money they raise? That's right: for every ten dollars you donate to a cause through one of these firms, only one dollar actually makes it to the charity in question. And did you know that a substantial percentage of the remaining dollar can be eaten up by executive salaries, advertising, and other overhead, leaving only pennies for the cause you thought you were supporting?

These are just a few of the facts revealed in Dan Pallotta's new book, Charity Case: How the Nonprofit Community Can Stand Up for Itself and Change the World. And if you're like me, you're probably feeling a little cheated right now.

But here's the second shock: according to Pallotta, there's nothing wrong with that.

How can that be? Pallotta argues that executive compensation and overhead expenses cannot be considered in isolation when gauging an organization's effectiveness or efficiency. On the contrary, embracing the tools of capitalism (competitive salaries, advertising, lobbying, etc.) may be the best way for charities to maximize their donations and ultimately deliver superior services and programs.

It's an ends-justifies-the-means approach that many will find at odds with the spirit of the social — or, as Pallotta calls it, humanitarian — sector, and it's one Pallotta embraces unapologetically in his book.

Not surprisingly, Pallotta has had personal experience with these issues. As a younger man, he was an admirer of Werner Erhard, whose Hunger Project was criticized for being self-promotion disguised as philanthropy. Then, in 1994, he founded Pallotta TeamWorks, a for-profit organizer of fundraisers for breast cancer and AIDS charities that eventually closed its doors after a dispute with the Avon Products Foundation. He has since founded Advertising for Humanity, which offers business strategy and branding services to nonprofits, and writes a blog for the Harvard Business Review that, like his earlier book, Uncharitable, champions the view that the tactics and methods of capitalism are not incompatible with social sector work; in fact, adopting them is best thing that could happen to it.

But is a mashup of capitalism and do-gooding really possible?

Take the case of executive compensation. Pallotta persuasively argues that cost-benefit analysis must be used when analyzing executive salaries within the nonprofit sector. Regarding the much-criticized salary of Roxanne Spillett, president emeritus of the Boys and Girls Clubs of America, he says, "How can you judge if a $510,744 salary and bonus are worth it if you don't inquire into what the person receiving the salary achieved? A first-year business school student would be kicked out of class for such egregious non-analysis."

Similarly, in the case of overhead, Pallotta argues that there is a tendency to define a charity's "cause" too narrowly. As he puts it: "[I]f hunger, then soup — but not the spoon, the bowl, the stove, the fundraiser that got the money for the stove, or the postage on the thank-you note sent to the donor who donated the money for the stove. Just the soup molecules themselves."

As for the whopping 90 percent of your donated dollar claimed by many fundraising firms, Pallotta argues that for little-known causes with few resources, telemarketing may be the only realistic way of generating any revenue at all. "In many cases," he writes, "the telemarketing firm will essentially advance the upfront costs: it will take the financial risk associated with the possibility of zero donations and accept payment on the basis of only those people who do contribute, eliminating the need for the charity to invest in staff, space, telephony, and technology."

It all makes sense — although it doesn't necessarily make it more palatable to potential donors interested in supporting a cause rather than funding infrastructure.

Which begs the question: Should the general public be informed or shielded from this kind of information? Here Pallotta seems to be of two minds. On the one hand, he embraces the concept of transparency, arguing that if the public were better educated about the economics of charity work, it would be less offended by competitive salaries and high overhead. On the other hand, too much information can create a false image of greed or waste that can drastically stem the flow of donations to a charity or limit them to specific projects or activities.

Indeed, Pallotta argues, unfair media coverage of these kinds of fundraising practices as "extravagant" and "wasteful" has caused charities in general to be held in low esteem by the American public. And one response to this unfavorable coverage — legislation requiring greater transparency on the part of charities through the filing of more detailed financial reports — has had the unfortunate consequence of increasing the very overhead that charities are encouraged (and expected) to minimize.

Pallotta's solution to this conundrum? The establishment of an anti-defamation organization for the nonprofit sector that works to rebut these charges through promotional efforts similar to the "Got Milk?" campaign; the creation of a legal defense fund for the sector; and the creation of an organization that would develop and lobby for a "national civil rights act" for charities. In addition to defending the sector's "rights," the latter would serve as a repository of information for its use, including a "comprehensive national charity database that includes every operating tax-exempt organization in the country and is accessible to everyone and easy to use."

Actually, though, what Pallotta is presenting here is not so much a proposal as a fait accompli. The organization he describes already exists in nascent form, named and incorporated by Pallotta himself. As a result, Charity Case reads more like an advertisement for his own Charity Defense Council than a disinterested defense of the social sector. And that, ultimately, is the book's greatest weakness. By so heavily promoting his new organization (to the point of soliciting donations, recruiting volunteers to perform daily tasks, and hawking merchandise such as t-shirts, flags, and bumper stickers), Pallotta dilutes the persuasiveness of his case.

What's more, that case, when all is said and done, isn't that persuasive. Speaking for myself, I simply don't want to give ten dollars to any charity where almost every dollar goes to fundraising infrastructure or executive salaries, no matter how worthy the cause or how rational the economic justification. We all draw different lines in the sand, and while we may not be able to articulate the difference between acceptable and excessive overhead, most of us, as Supreme Court justice Potter Stewart famously said about pornography, know it when we see it.

Shock me once, shame on you...

-- Chuck Bartelt

Weekend Link Roundup (September 15-16, 2012)

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

Communications/Marketing

Looking to create or strengthen a tagline for your organization? Nonprofit marketing expert Nancy Schwartz has selected sixty-three nonprofit taglines from fourteen hundred submitted to her Getting Attention blog over the summer and is asking readers to help choose the 2012 Nonprofit Tagline Award winners. Voting is open through midnight on October 5, and if you subscribe to the Getting Attention e-update while you're on the site, you'll get a free copy of the 2013 Getting Attention Nonprofit Tagline Report (due in late fall).

In a post on the Communications Network blog, Louis Herr says that "limiting Web evaluation to a clickstream product like Google Analytics starves you of critical information." In his post, Herr highlights the argument made by Avinash Kaushik in Web Analytics: An Hour a Day -- to wit, that to be truly actionable, Web analytics should focus on measures of behavior, outcome, and experience, not just page views and click counts.

Fundraising

On the Philanthropy Potluck blog, Lissa Jones, director of diversity, equity, and inclusion at the Minnesota Council on Foundations, discusses the implications of the Millennium Communications Group's Donors of the Future Scan, which identified twelve key trends in giving. Those trends include a giving population that is growing more diverse, increasing pressure on endowed giving, and the growing popularity of "flash" and Internet giving portals.

Impact/Effectiveness

The Knowledge@Wharton blog has a good post on the potential, and obstacles to broader adoption, of social impact bonds (SIBs), which generate a return for outside investors only if the program is successful. 

Philanthropy

Writing on the Re: Phlanthropy blog, new Council On Foundations president Vikki Spruill lays out her vision for a re-energized CoF, one that is focused "on the future and what philanthropy can make possible," that supports its members with tools and ideas, that works to increase the understanding of the impact of philanthropy and enhances members' ability to effect positive change.

In a post on the Philanthrocapitalism blog, Matthew Bishop and Michael Green discuss #givingtuesday, a new grassroots campaign spearheaded by the 92 Street Y in New York City that seeks to get "everyone -- individuals and organizations alike -- to make a fresh commitment to give" on November 27. "The hope is that #givingtuesday will be a sort of 'opening day' for the giving season, the launch pad for a more productive than ever period of giving in the weeks and months ahead," write Bishop and Green. "It aims to build on the existing National Philanthropy Day (November 15th), which is a time to reflect on and celebrate past acts of philanthropy, with a day of action devoted to new giving, when everyone can make their personal giving pledge for the giving season and year to come."

Writing on his White Courtesy telephone blog, Greater New Orleans Foundation president and CEO Albert Ruesga urges young professionals working in the philanthropy field who may by "haunted...by the memory of some infelicitous essay on Plato’s Republic to "Let it go! Let it go...! Our first inklings of a world beyond that described to us by our parents have extraordinary value. The exhilaration we felt at being invited to question authority can still save our field from grave errors."

And on our sister Glasspockets blog, Foundation Center president Brad Smith takes a look at the Chinese Foundation Center's recently launched Foundation Transparency Index and asks, "[A]re Chinese foundations more transparent than American foundations?” His answer? Maybe. But while "American foundations may be different than Chinese foundations in some ways," Smith writes, "in facing growing demands for transparency from government, media, and the public [they] are more alike than we realize."

Social Media

In the most recent installment of her Social Good podcast series on the Chronicle of Philanthropy site, Allison Fine chats with network-weaving expert June Holley about how network weaving can help steer nonprofit organizations in the right direction with respect to their social media activity. "Network weaving...is the intentional activation of networks to do something together," adds Fine, "but it isn’t intuitive for people coming with a command and control mindset."

Beth Kanter explains why she had to reschedule a trip to Tunisia following a wave of anti-American protests there and in other Arab countries fueled by anger over an anti-Muslim video created by a Muslim-hating provocateur in California. Recent events in Libya, where the American ambassador and three others were killed by angry mobs, and Egypt, writes Kanter, raise a number of questions about censorship on the Internet and the need for "nonviolent approaches to resolving conflict."

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

-- The Editors

 

Conducting a Pre-Mortem

(The following post by Taproot Foundation president Aaron Hurst was adapted from Taproot's new book, Powered by Pro Bono: a Nonprofit's Step-by-Step Guide to Scoping, Securing, Managing and Scaling Pro Bono Resources, published by Jossey-Bass. In his last post, Aaron shared three tips to help prepare your team to be a great client for a pro bono engagement.)

A post-mortem is done by doctors after a patient dies to uncover the cause of the patient's demise. It's also a great way for doctors to learn and hold themselves accountable (although it doesn't do much good for the recently deceased on the table).

A pre-mortem, a process that increasingly is being adopted by project teams, takes the idea of the post-mortem and tries to apply it before a patient has died -- in other words, before it's too late to help. But of course in this case I'm not talking about an actual patient, but rather any project (internal or external) that involves a significant commitment of resources (monetary and/or human).

The pre-mortem process can be as simple as asking your team a few questions at the start of the project. For example: Assume that, six months down the road, everything that could go wrong on this project has gone wrong. What went wrong? And why?

Focus on the three to five most likely reasons that the project could fail or go off the rails. Then map back how you could have prevented these meltdowns. Finally, incorporate those changes into your project plan before you actually get to work. Might the patient still show up DOA? Sure. But the chances of that happening are much less likely than if you skip the pre-mortem altogether.

-- Aaron Hurst

8 Trends That Will Shape Fundraising

(Derrick Feldmann is CEO of Achieve, an Indianapolis-based consulting firm that works with nonprofits.)

When I was working in development for a nonprofit, I was expected to provide my executive director with annual fundraising goals for my department -- goals that were based on donor history, prior-year results, and the likelihood that a certain number of prospects would give for the first time.

In addition to our baseline goal, we always established a stretch goal or modeled a best-case scenario for our efforts. Early in my career we never seemed to hit the stretch goal, in part because I didn't know our donors that well and because we based our predictions on what the organization needed, rather than on our donors' willingness to give.

Over time I realized that to make our stretch goal, we had to alter our approach. And so, in addition to market research and data mining, we came up with three questions to help guide our efforts.

1. What is causing donors to engage with us now?
2. Which fundraising approaches are still relevant and why?
3. What forces will influence donor behavior in the future?

In my opinion, these three questions should be the starting point for anyone trying to determine the long-term impact of their fundraising efforts (not to mention the future of fundraising itself). Recently I had a chance to sit down and revisit the questions, and I came up with the following eight trends that I believe will shape the fundraising industry and the relationship between donors and nonprofit organizations in the future.

Technology Trifecta
Increasingly, nonprofits will look at communications and fundraising through the lens of the what I call the "technology trifecta": Web, mobile, and social media. And as they do, they will test concepts across all three channels to determine the right mix for their own constituencies. Mobile will continue to gain traction as technology and mobile marketing techniques improve. Social media will open the door to better donor communication and stewardship. And the Web will be the go-to place for transparency and donor-interaction tools. Testing and experimentation across all three channels will be key to implementation. Organizations also will need to manage expectations and develop effective donor delivery methods that don't simply ape other organizations' tactics. The fundraising "shop" that doesn't align its marketing efforts with all three channels will have a hard time maintaining its position in the nonprofit marketplace.

Communication Control
Donors will have the ability to control how they receive communications from your organization based on personal preference and interests. Improvements in communications technology also will make it easier for nonprofits to connect with donors who seek specific information about the impact of a gift and/or an organization's health. In addition, organizations will allocate communication and marketing resources according to donor preference, rather than making assumptions about what donors want based on their content consumption.

Smaller Gifts, More Often
Donors will provide smaller gifts but will give several times over the course of the year. Organizations that provide small, impulsive gifting opportunities will be better positioned to strengthen their relationships with donors. In addition, donors will continue to drive smaller gifts toward projects where tangible results can be demonstrated.

Improved Transaction Times
Organizations will reduce the time between the giving decision and the actual transaction. One-click giving and other impulse-gifting technologies will gain in popularity. Giving will become a quick-and-easy experience that meets individuals' impulsive need to serve the greater good.

Donors Will Rate Fundraising Appeals
Thanks to the growing popularity of consumer feedback platforms such as TripAdvisor and Yelp, we will see new platforms emerge that allow donors to rate their fund-solicitation experiences and share those ratings and experiences with their friends.

Donor Loyalty Will Reign
Organizations will focus on donor loyalty rather than the size of the gift. Hard to believe, I know, but organizations will spend less time worrying about the transactional donor and will focus more time and energy on the loyal donor who attends activities/events, reads their marketing and communications materials, engages with them on social media platforms, and regularly volunteers. This kind of loyalty also will drive ongoing peer engagement and support from donor networks and force organizations to develop loyalty stewardship programs.

Crowdfunding by Donor Networks
We will see more donor networks comprised of individuals who come together around specific causes, engage in volunteerism, and/or willingly promote the activities of the causes and organizations they support. Increasingly, fundraising staff will have the capability to track these networks as well as other peer groups and use that information to leverage their resources.

Visual Impact Reporting
Organizations will move from annual reports to real-time reporting of their impact in the community. Fundraisers will become more adept at using digital communications technologies and creative design to inform donors about the impact achieved by their dollars. For their part, donors will demand such reporting.

Of course, all these predictions are just that: predictions. And even if some (or all) gain traction over the next few years, they might not affect every organization. Still, I believe that at some point all nonprofit organizations will need to incorporate many of the practices outlined above or face the prospect of falling behind, in both their fundraising and impact. The future of fundraising is about donors wanting easy and accessible opportunities to support, learn, and serve. It's up to you to get your organization ready for that future.

-- Derrick Feldmann

Weekend Link Roundup (September 8-9, 2012)

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

Advocacy

On his Harvard Business Review blog, Dan Pallotta, author of Uncharitable and the just released Charity Case: How the Nonprofit Community Can Stand Up for Itself, makes the case for "an Apollo program for American philanthropy and the nonprofit sector." In the book, Pallotta outlines plans for a "national Charity Defense Council" that would provide "five vital grassroots organizing functions" for the sector, including an anti-defamation mechanism and a legal defense fund.

Communications/Marketing

When it comes to nonprofit Web sites, presentation matters. Indeed, writes Katya Andresen on her Non-Profit Marketing Blog, charities "with a branded donation page -- a page that shows off the organization's personality and makes giving tangible for donors -- can see up to seven times more in donation dollars than a nonprofit with a generic, e-commerce page for donations." For more stats about the state of online philanthropy, check out the Q2 update of Network for Good's Digital Giving Index.

Fundraising

At the Future Fundraising Now blog, Jeff Brooks announces the release of his new book, The Fundraiser's Guide to Irresistible Communications. As Brooks explains, the book "zeroes in on the hard stuff, the surprising, counterintuitive things that most often trip up fundraisers. You won't find wild-eyed, speculative theories in this book. Just the solid, experiential practices."

Journalism/Media

On the Nieman Journalism Lab blog, Justin Ellis shares some findings from a recent Knight Foundation report that looks at the 2009 Knight News Challenge winners. Of the nine winners, the most highly rated projects as the year began were DocumentCloud, the Jefferson Institute's Data Visualization tools, and Ushahidi. Four projects -- CMS Upload Utility, Councilpedia, MediaBugs, and City Circles (formerly The Daily Phoenix) -- have dramatically scaled back their activity or "closed up shop altogether."

Philanthropy

UK-based Alliance magazine has unveiled its September issue, which includes a special feature focused on data and philanthropy with articles and commentary from Foundation Center president Brad Smith; Larry McGill, the center's vice president for research; philanthropy "data wonk" extraordinaire Lucy Bernholz; and many others.

In the Nonprofit Quarterly, Prentice Zinn, a director of GMA Foundations, a philanthropic services organization located in Boston, argues that the focus in philanthropy on "measuring outcomes and documenting impact [that] has been gaining momentum since the late 1960s" may not be all it's cracked up to be. Writes Zinn:

I am beginning to believe that the notion of so-called "strategic philanthropy," in all of its beguiling and shape-shifting forms, is a very powerful accomplice in transforming the funding ecology and structure of the nonprofit sector. Quite simply, it shifts the onus for creativity and decision making to those who have control of the finances and narrows, in many cases, the number of groups with whom philanthropists have to reciprocally communicate as they "focus" ever more acutely not just on the outcomes they hope for but on their preferred strategy for production of those outcomes. And this smaller number of grantees become the anointed -- the chosen....

What do you think? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

Social Media

On Razoo's Inspiring Generosity blog, John Haydon discusses how Julie Nations, the executive director of the Ellie Fund, a small breast cancer charity in Massachusetts with only one other full-time staff member, planned and implemented a successful social media campaign that raised $53,089 and won the Twive and Receive competition.

Nonprofit Tech 2.0's Heather Mansfiled shares a list of "Must-Read Reports for Nonprofits." PhilanTopic readers are welcome to add their suggestions in the comment section below.

And Company K Media's Kerri Karvetski shares a list of thirty popular hashtags designed to make your experience on Twitter more fun and rewarding.

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

-- The Editors

The Grantseekers Guide to Foundation Transitions

(Bradford K. Smith is president of the Foundation Center. In his last post, he wrote about philanthropy's data dilemma.)

Things are going just great for your nonprofit. You've painstakingly constructed a stable group of foundations that is providing a steady stream of grants to your organization, program officers like you and invite you to their convenings, and you've achieved that much-desired goal of having a diversified funding base.

Then comes the press release: "Mary Doe, president of the Acme Foundation in Anywhere, USA, has announced that she will retire after twenty years of service. The foundation’s board has contracted the services of Russell Reynolds/Spencer Stuart/Heidrich & Struggles/Issacson Miller to conduct a national search." The Acme Foundation is your main funder and the future is in doubt. The headhunters call you to inquire about what qualities the foundation should be looking for in their next leader, and you have to stifle the urge to scream, "Just find somebody who won't feel s/he needs to change everything and screw it up!"

Then the first symptoms appear. Big-name consulting firms start lining up at the foundation's door. Foundation communiqués include phrases like "no new commitments will be considered while the foundation undergoes a strategic review." Your program officer is unable to commit to your proposal. It's difficult to get a meeting with someone at the foundation who can tell you what's going on. After a year or more, a letter from the president explaining how the foundation's new priorities will further its mission appears on the foundation’s Web site. Eventually, you learn that the "urban poverty" program under which you've been funded is being phased out in favor of a new "innovation economy" initiative.

As a grantseeker, you don't have to remain powerless on the sidelines while the foundation finds its new path. There are things you should know and can do that will help you and your organization weather the storm.

Take heart, the odds are in your favor
If you are already a grantee of the foundation, there's a good chance you will remain one. Between 2008 and 2010, some 1.1 million grants tracked in Foundation Directory Online went to 128,000 recipients. In other words, the number of new organizations entering the funding portfolio of a foundation is far less than the number of grantees who are renewed year after year. Foundations are more faithful than you may think.

Give it your best shot
The above notwithstanding, if you are not currently a grantee of the foundation, a transition is a great time to lob a proposal into the process. It just might be that your ideas align with its new direction or provide the spark that helps the foundation find one. Even if you can't submit a proposal, write a blog piece or share your ideas with a foundation consultant or insider -- anything that might get your insights noticed at a time when things are in flux.

Remember, the foundation is still making grants
The kinds of form letters and statements foundations crank out during transitions can sometimes give the impression that all they are doing is reflecting and planning. Not true. Regardless of how much a foundation is refreshing, revisioning, or renewing, the IRS still requires that it pay out 5 percent of its assets or be hit with a higher excise tax. Organizations are still getting grants; it might as well be yours.

Ask who your contact at the foundation is
It's amazing how many foundations drop the ball on this one during transitions. Ensuring that grantees know who their contact is at the foundation is a basic tenet of grants administration. But with the inward focus and many moving parts that typically accompany a transition, grantees sometimes get left in the dark. Asking who your contact will be during a transition conveys an impression of good management while reminding the foundation that you exist.

Be careful about praising the past
If you find yourself in a meeting or at a reception with a new president or program officer, don't go on and on about how great the foundation was in the past. Especially in the early years after a transition, s/he may feel the need to break with the past so as to focus on creating a new future for the organization. Lest your remarks be interpreted as a critique of the new direction, you are better off listening and engaging about the future than waxing nostalgic.

Think like a chameleon
Very few foundations ever make a radical break with their past -- donor intent, mission, history, boards, and relationships all work against it. Transitions are more like a variation on a theme. So your organization needs to act a bit like a chameleon in adapting to the new direction. There's nothing wrong with this. A chameleon does not stop being a chameleon because it adapts to a new environment; it survives. Besides, it might be that the new priorities and programs articulated by the foundation point to the kind of re-think you should be doing in your own organization.

Foundation transitions are seldom seamless affairs. Incoming presidents, more often than not, are replacing an incumbent that has been there for a decade or more. Typically, they must navigate a range of time-honored practices and figure out a way to unlock the knowledge in the heads of existing staff, family members, and/or trustees. Getting the information needed to run the ship and chart a new course is challenging and time-consuming. Moreover, because foundations are free from market pressures and insulated by endowments, foundation leaders just don’t have a whole lot of levers to encourage staff to work in different ways. As a result, transitions are often drawn out and anxiety-provoking affairs for grantees. Take heart. While you can't control what happens inside a foundation, as a grantseeker you have more power than you think.

-- Brad Smith

Prepare Your Team for Pro Bono

(Aaron Hurst is president of the Taproot Foundation. The following post was adapted from Powered by Pro Bono: The Nonprofits Step-by-Step Guide to Scoping, Securing, Managing, and Scaling Pro Bono Resources, to be published later this month by Jossey-Bass. To read the previous post in Aaron's series, click here.)

You just returned from a meeting with one of your largest corporate partners. In the meeting, you explored the possibility of your corporate partner doing a critical pro bono project for you in a few months. They seemed like they were pretty into it. Heading back to the office, you're fired up but want to make sure your staff is ready.

Here are three tips to prepare your team to be a great client for the pro bono engagement:

1. Clearly define the connection of the project to your strategic plan and goals. Make sure you can make the case that it's a critical project for your organization.
2. Identify who will be on your internal team and tasked with working with your corporate partner. Clearly define team members' roles and think about how you will recognize their work on the project, including the skills it will help them develop.
3. Have your internal team meet and do a pre-mortem before the project kicks off.  Pre-mortems are a great way to expose team members' hopes and fears.

Much of the success of a pro bono project lies in how you prepare staff for the engagement. As with most things in life, what you get out of it is directly correlated to what you put into it.

Of course, companies also play an important role in getting their nonprofit partners ready for a pro bono engagement. If you’re a company looking for ways to get involved, check out our upcoming webinar on Nonprofit Readiness.

-- Aaron Hurst

Weekend Link Roundup (September 1-2, 2012)

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

Fundraising

Network for Good's Katya Andresen shares a letter from one of her blog readers, who urges development directors to "make sure your donors are really getting the prompt thanks they deserve."

International Development

On the Gates Foundation's Impatient Optimists blog, Ari Katz describes how public libraries are bolstering development efforts in impoverished communities. Among other things, Katz writes, libraries empower women, expand awareness of and solutions to public health problems, and help to bridge the education gap in many developing countries.

Nonprofit Management

On her blog, Beth Kanter announces the forthcoming publication of her second book, Measuring the Networked Nonprofit, which she co-authored with KD Paine. Among other things, the book presents "a framework called 'Crawl, Walk, Run, Fly' to help nonprofits figure out what...steps they need to take to get to the next level of networked nonprofit practice. It is designed to help them understand and measure the nature of the change process as they move through it." We're looking forward to reading the book and learning more.

Philanthropy

In a post on her Philanthropy 2173 blog, Lucy Bernholz argues that because foundations don't have nearly enough money to solve the problems laid at their doorsteps, the foundation application process is a mess. "From the outside looking in," writes Bernholz,

foundations appear to be making it as hard as possible to apply for funding. They all have their own forms. The language about what they seek to accomplish is jargon-riddled and as opaque as possible. Some won't take unsolicited proposals at all. Others require several steps of inquiry before agreeing to receive an application.

Wouldn't it be better, she adds, "[i]f foundation application procedures were designed to help them find the right projects and help applicants find the funding they need (even if it's not going to be from that foundation?) Or if applicants could get guidance and help to improve their proposals?" As an example of what that might look like, Bernholz points to American Public Media's Transom site, which leverages the interactive nature and global reach of the Internet to channel new work and voices to public radio.

Social Media

On the Foundation Center's Transparency Talk blog, Mike Painter, senior program officer at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, shares some of the thinking behind the foundation's community engagement efforts on Facebook. Among other things, the foundation has learned that, when it comes to social media, "it pays to experiment...to be bold" Writes Painter:

It turns out the risks were actually minimal and manageable -- and the upside was pretty big. Some of us may have had unfounded fears about losing some measure of control of the discussions we were promoting when we moved to Facebook. In our experience, we almost certainly gave away control, but in return we got a glimpse of something much more important and powerful -- energized and empowered collaborators willing to work and share with us toward some important common yet tough, big goals -- like, for instance, improving health care....

Women

On the Minnesota Council on Foundations' Philanthropy Potluck blog, Anne Bauers shares some findings from Women Give 2012, a new study from the Women's Philanthropy Institute at the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University which found that "boomer and older women give 89 percent more to charity than their male counterparts."

And Forbes shares its list of 2012's "Most Powerful Women Philanthropists" -- a list that includes Christine Lagarde of the International Monetary Fund, Helen Clark of the United Nations Development Program, Solina Chau of the Li Ka Shing Foundation, and Risa Lavizzo-Mourey of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

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

-- The Editors

NPO Job Openings (July 2012)

It’s been three weeks since the Bureau of Labor Statistics released the July job numbers, and the muted optimism that greeted news of a modest uptick in nonfarm payrolls seems to have dissipated as the presidential campaign has turned relentlessly negative.

According to the BLS, total nonfarm employment rose by 163,000 in July -- an increase of 99,000 from the 64,000 jobs added in June and significantly better than the 96,000 jobs added in July 2011. While the unemployment rate remained stuck at 8.3 percent (12.8 million people) -- a fact Republicans are likely to beat like a drum at their convention -- the average number of jobs added on a monthly basis rose above 151,000 for the first time in 2012.

(Chart courtesy CNNMoney)

When we look at the number of jobs submitted to the PND job board -- something we do periodically here at PND -- tells a slightly different story, with job postings down on a month-over-month (12.4 percent) and year-over-year (15 percent) basis. Indeed, the 310 jobs posted to the board in July represent the lowest monthly total to date in 2012, while postings to the board overall have declined 3.7 percent compared to the same seven-month period in 2011 -- anecdotal evidence of a sluggish, if not slowing, economy.

One bright spot in the employment picture is Florida, which, as the Conference Board recently noted, led the nation in online job postings in July with an almost 13 percent month-over-month increase. Indeed, here at PND, Florida -- more so than any other Southern state -- has emerged as a bright spot in a rather drab employment picture, with plentiful nonprofit job openings in areas such as the arts, education, medical research, and human services.

Still, despite the good news from the Sunshine State and the better-than-expected jobs report, the economic outlook over the next six months is anything but clear. Will the technocrats in Brussels manage to hold the Eurozone together and keep the continent from sliding further into recession? Will the administration and the do-nothing 112th Congress address the so-called "fiscal cliff" before the election in November, or leave the tough decisions on spending and taxes to a new Congress and administration? Will the Federal Reserve introduce a third round of quantitative easing or sit tight as the economy chugs along at a 2 percent growth rate? Only time will tell.

For what it's worth, we're optimistic that, as it has been every year since 2009, August will again be a good month for postings to the PND job board, with  "bread and butter" areas like development/fundraising, technology, and human services leading the way. And, of course, we’ll be back in a few months with a followup report.

-- Lauren Brathwaite

[Infographic] Nonprofit Strategic Restructuring

How are funders supporting strategic collaboration, and how are nonprofits engaging in these kinds of partnerships with each other?

To answer those questions, our colleagues in the Foundation Center's field offices turned to the center's Nonprofit Collaboration Database to find nonprofit organization from across the country who could tell them about their experiences. They eventually contacted ten and asked them questions like:

• Why were you collaborating?
• What are the challenges to effective collaboration?
• How are foundations supporting your collaboration?
• How do you wish they would have supported you?

Then, in partnership with La Piana Consulting and the Tides Center, the center convened ten funders in a daylong session in San Francisco to talk about the way nonprofits and foundations are thinking about collaboration generally and strategic restructuring more specifically.

Based on those two sources of knowledge, our colleagues then created the infographic below for the Alliance for Nonprofit Management 2012 conference (hashtag: #anm12). Enjoy!

(Click for larger image)

For more information about collaboration and strategic restructuring, b sure to check out these resources:

• Nonprofit Collaboration Database
• Collaboration page on GrantSpace
• GrantSpace podcast archive (including the collaboration interviews)
• La Piana: How Grantmakers Can Support Strategic Collaboration
• Collaborating For Good (video)