Posts Tagged ‘Volunteer Management’

Meaningful Goals

Wednesday, January 6th, 2010

It is the start of a new year. For many nonprofits, it is start of a new fiscal year also. What are your board’s goals?

While working with nonprofits, we often hear about desires this time of year. We frequently hear, “We want more vitality, strength, and sustainability.” Some refer to that as goal setting.

What is the difference between a desire and a goal? Without a plan, more vitality, strength, and sustainability are just desires. Without a plan, how will you convince the staff, donors, referral sources, and others that you are serious, intentional, and know how to do it? Unless you write down your plan how will others follow it? Without milestones how will you know if the plan is working?

There is a temptation to say that step one is raise more money. Of course, that is important but is it the first step?

Think about your favorite product. If the manufacturer wants to sell more what has to happen? They need one or more of the following:

Add new features to attract the people who were uninterested last year

Lower the price to make it more affordable for those unable to buy last year

More distribution outlets so that it is easier for people to find

Broader advertising so that more people know about the product

The list goes on

Your favorite nonprofit is more likely to provide a service than a product but the principles apply. What will you change so that you can reach more donors, so that more donors will respond, or so that existing donors will be more generous? In short, if nothing changes you should expect the same response from the donors this year. Will you be happy with the same response as 2009?

For many nonprofits, nothing changed internally between 2008 and 2009. However, the economy turned down creating an external change. Without a corresponding positive internal change, they raised less money in 2009 than 2008.

Here is a counter example. Realizing the need for internal change to counteract the down economy, one organization focused on creating a better experience for their volunteers. As a result, they had more volunteers and more volunteer hours (2008 – 2,200 volunteer hours, 2009 – more than 5,000 volunteer hours).

Doubling volunteer hours is very beneficial. Of course, it was good for the clients who receive services. It was also good for fundraising.

In fundraising terms, there was a double affect. They raised 8% more in 2009. Exceeding the preceding year in a down economy is good. In addition, the volunteer hours reduced their staff time and expenses over 2008. Lower costs producing more income, who could ask for more? Net income was up more than 8% for the year.

They exceeded their goal. That is a nice in a tough year.

It is important to emphasize that an operational change (volunteer management) created a financial gain. An operational change converted a desire for more money into an achievable goal.

What are the operational changes that will change your desires into goals?

Next Step:

Define your goals

Create a concrete plan for each of your goals

Establish milestones so that you know the plan is working and there is accountability

Monitor the activity to ensure that milestones are met

Adjust the plan to improve the results

As always, if you want help contact us.

Mission Enablers

Follow us on Twitter

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Decision Making, Leadership, Volunteer Management, donors, fundraising, sustainability | Comments Off

Nonprofit Board — Building Donor Passion

Thursday, February 19th, 2009

Last time it was about the key elements of a strategic plan and the benefits. The second benefit is a passionate nonprofit donor.

Donor passion comes from within the donor. It is impossible to create from the outside. However, one can connect the passion of the donor to the mission. The strategic plan is the connection.

The strategic plan must be concrete, creditable, and have an emotional element. One of the ways to ensure concreteness is to have firm goals. Measurable and meaningful goals are concrete.

Let us assume that we are attempting to eliminate hunger. Progress toward that goal would be a reduction in the number of sacks of food needed next year. That would suggest that the community’s problem is smaller even though the population is growing. The goal is measurable and meaningful.

Is it creditable? No. However, it can become creditable if the plan is logical and practical. If the reader can immediately see how it is possible to achieve the goals, it has credibility. If it depends on elements beyond ones control (improvement in the stock market, low fuel costs, and increased manufacturing activity), it may still work, but everyone will wait and see. Credibility will be after the fact. Can you afford to have the donors wait or is it important to have support now?

One way to destroy credibility is to have a strategic plan covering the near term. Some problems take years to solve. Offering a cure for cancer in the next 12 months, lack credibility. Offering a cure for the ten most common forms of cancer in 20 years seems believable.

The final element is emotional engagement. The plan to this point is sterile. It appeals to the intellect. That is good because the intellect is often the gatekeeper that allows the engagement of the heart.

The plan needs to talk about the changes one sees in the clients. “The clients will have greater self-confidence, new skills, and less stress as a result of completing the first class. The second class will give them …” How many donor hearts can say no to that? In other words, the supporting narrative needs to humanize the facts and planning.

Now the donor can justify the gift. The gift solves an important problem (last article), the plan is creditable and measurable, and there is a direct personal connection. The donor can say, “I am helping people …” That is very different from saying, “I give to the X&Z agency.” People are passionate about helping people. (People are passionate about their new car. It is rare for someone to be passionate about the manufacturer.)

The passion in the nonprofit employees, volunteers, and the board will also be obvious. A passionate nonprofit board is more effective. It is important to remember that referral source is a nonprofit volunteer with a different purpose. Having a creditable, concrete, and emotionally engaging strategic plan increases the effectiveness of the referral sources.

One of the most important referral sources are the clients. If they are receiving the promises of the mission, referring others is easy and natural.

With all of that support, it is easy to see how a good strategic plan creates sustainability.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Strategic Planning, donors, sustainability | Comments Off

Nonprofit Boards – The benefits of strategic planning

Monday, January 26th, 2009

The benefits are what every organization dreams about. A strategic plan will produce sustainability. The symptoms or key elements of sustainability are strong community support, donor passion, motivated employees and volunteers, an effective board, active and committed referral sources, and clients referring others.

Is it reasonable to expect that from a strategic plan?

What does it take to have strong community support? One must have a goal that inspires the community. Eliminating hunger is one example. However, there must be a plan behind that.

Passing out sacks of food is unlikely to inspire support. Passing out food feeds people but it fails to eliminate hunger.

It is important to truly solve a problem if one wants dependable support from the community.  This is especially true during tough economic times.

People feel they have limited resources to give to charity. They need to know that their gift is going to eliminate a problem.

The current economic environment has created skepticism. The banks received money from the government. People expected the money to solve a problem. The number of bank loans is below the expected level. People feel the government failed to ensure the effective use of the money.

The consumer is carrying that disappointment into other aspects of their lives. Charitable giving is one of the areas. They are starting to ask, “Who is solving the problem?” The question in 2008 was, “Who is working on the problem?”

In 2008, it was okay to be working on the problem. It was okay to be passing out sacks of food so that people could look for a job if they wanted to. However, like the government money it fails to ensure that the recipient will look for a job.

Trusting the banks to make loans seems to be the same mistake as trusting the unemployed to look for a job. It is the donor’s privilege to decide if the two problems are identical. Do you have time this year to argue with your donors and community?

The strategic plan must be robust enough to deliver on the mission. There are two options. One is to change the mission. It still needs to solve an important problem but maybe a smaller more manageable one. The other option is to create a robust strategic plan that delivers on the promise of the mission.

Many nonprofits are laying off workers. Some are closing their door. Both are suffering from a lack of support. If you want to avoid that fate, create a strategic plan that actually solves a problem important to your community.

Does your strategic plan promise a solution or just support a need? What changes do you need to make to become a problem solver?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Decision Making, Management, Strategic Planning | Comments Off

Nonprofit Boards – Strategic Planning is a Challenge

Tuesday, January 13th, 2009

At its best, strategic planning results in the solution to a significant mission centered problem.

Many nonprofits of all sizes struggle with strategic planning. Many individuals argue that strategic planning is a waste of effort. Technology changes often and rapidly. How can you develop a strategy in a rapidly changing environment?

A better question might be, “How can you prosper in a rapidly changing environment without a long-term vision and plan?” If everything is changing, it becomes important to know where you are going and what you want to accomplish along the way.

Most board members have limited experience with strategic planning. Most of those who do have experience were actually recruited because of some other skill. As a result, most boards place very little emphasis on strategic planning.

Most boards are focused on this year’s budget. There are two ways to address that problem. The first possible solution is to develop a process for increasing donations. Most boards are uncomfortable with this since it means doing something that makes them uncomfortable – soliciting donations. The second possible solution is to cut costs. The board is comfortable with that It has lots of experience cutting costs at home and work, it takes less time, and produces immediate results.

Cutting costs is good if one is finding efficiencies. However, most of the time cost cutting results in the reduction of services. While it protects the agency from failure, it also reduces the scale of the mission and impact on the community. As a result, the immediate need is met but future support is reduced. Who wants to give money to an agency that is intentionally doing less for the community when the need for services is growing?

The polar opposite is focusing on a significant mission centered problem. The first step is to identify the problem. The best way to discover the problem is to ask the community and the clients about unmet needs, under met needs, and emerging needs. Once you know the problem, it is easy to establish a date for having a solution. The follow-on step is to roll out the solution to the public. The final step is to achieve success in the form of eliminating the problem.

Think about polio. Someone had to develop a vaccine. Then it was necessary to test the vaccine. Then it was necessary to mass-produce and distribute the vaccine. Today, polio is found only in a limited geographic area in Africa.

The elimination of polio is now an achievable goal. It has taken about 50 years for the polio team to reach this point. How old is your nonprofit? How close are you to eliminating the need that defines your mission? How much closer will you be in 10 years? Do you see the value of a strategic plan?

It is usually hard for nonprofits to take this visionary approach. The lack of strategic planning experience on the board is one constraint. The urgent needs of money, the declining economy, and the competition for donors occupy a significant portion of the board’s time. The time required to talk with clients and the community is significant. It is difficult to envision the solution to the problem once it is identified. It can also be overwhelming to think about actually solving a significant problem. So why bother?

The benefits are significant. It is easier to raise money for a vision than the current budget. Everyone wants to be part of something significant. It is easier to find volunteers and community support because the community understands the benefits of your success. It is easier to sustain the effort because everyone wants you to succeed. It costs less than you think because people are willing to help. It increases the sense of purpose for the staff and board. It creates sustainability.

For me the pros out weigh the cons. How do you feel?

Mission Enablers

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Board Governance, Decision Making, Leadership, Strategic Planning, sustainability | 2 Comments »

Nonprofit Boards and Strategic Planning

Wednesday, January 7th, 2009

At its best strategic planning solves an important problem.

What is a counter example? Let us consider the board’s strategic planning retreat to create this year’s budget.

What is the problem they are trying to solve? They want to ensure that the agency has sufficient funds to operate. Is that a big problem? No, it may be a difficult problem given past practices and a weak economy. In addition, it is only a problem for the agency. Is it the right type of problem for the board to discuss? No, they hired an executive director to handle the operational needs. Funding the daily operations is part of the job of the executive (this is true of government managers, business managers, and nonprofit managers).

What is a good example?

How should our agency grow?

Should we grow in the number of people we serve, the size of the territory we serve, or the number of services we offer?

How fast should we grow?

What goals should we set?

Picking the strategic issue and answering the critical questions is appropriate for the board.

Growth is one example of a strategic issue. It then prompts the discussion of tactical issues. For example:

How do we fund the growth?

Should we rely on foundations?

Should we have a capital campaign to fund the growth?

Should we merge with other agencies?

Should we partner with other agencies?

Are there for-profits who would be willing to help us?

Handling the tactical issues is the work of the board committees. It is where one blends the practical experience of the staff with the vision of the board.

Having addressed the strategic and the tactical, it is possible to turn the project over to the executive and staff. The staff can handle the operational issues. Some of the operational issues the staff must consider are:

How do we make our systems scalable?

What infrastructure do we need and by when?

What skills do we need?

Will we hire the skills or build them internally?

What quality measures should we use?

How do we increase our accountability?

What should we say in our funding appeal?

When will we need money and how much?

So what if your board is unprepared for this challenge? No problem. Meet with the board chair and develop a three plan to get the board ready.

Mission Enablers

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Board Governance, Decision Making, Strategic Planning | Comments Off

Donor Loyalty

Friday, December 12th, 2008

Where does donor loyalty start? Is it the responsibility of the donor to become loyal or is it the nonprofit’s job to create an environment that encourages loyalty?

Think about this scenario. Two years ago, a nonprofit received $50,000 with the expectation that it would find at least $50,000 in matching money. The money was for a volunteer center.

Now the nonprofit is closing the volunteer center. Why? The initial seed money has run out. Why did the money run out? The nonprofit never raised a cent toward the ongoing operation or the continuation of the volunteer center. The nonprofit leadership and board were never passionate about the activity.

Starting the volunteer center created a use for vacant office space. Charging the volunteer center for rent, Internet connection, phones, etc. was a way to offset operating expenses.

Did the volunteer center do anything worthwhile? It recruited over 700 volunteers and connected them to more than 50 other agencies. That sounds like something worth continuing. However, to continue would require the nonprofit to raise funds for the volunteer center.

The nonprofit executive recommended closing the volunteer center. The board agreed. Now a volunteer coordinator is unemployed. More than 50 nonprofits will lose a source of volunteers. There is disappointment in the community over the decision.

The net saving to the nonprofit is less than $40,000. How could the decision to close possibly be worth more than $40,000 to the nonprofit? If you were the grant advisor for the foundation that started the process, how likely are you to support or approve the next grant request from those folks? Can you really trust them to be sincere about the next project? If you were a grant advisor at other foundation in the community, what would your reaction be? If you were a private donor in that community, would you continue to give or find a different nonprofit?

If one expects donors to be loyal, the nonprofit must model loyalty.

It is easy to explain why ending the service is a good short-term decision. It is an attractive decision when the donations are down and the economy is weak. However, this is one of those great accounting decisions that is bad economics.

For-profits have the same problems. Once they launch a product, it is nearly impossible to withdraw it. Their response is to sell it to someone else. If the new owner is successful, that is wonderful. If the new owner fails, the original owner maintains a good reputation.

The nonprofit equivalent is to spin off the operation. Create a new 501c3 and let it gather a board and continue. If that works, everyone is happy. You are a hero. You allowed a valuable service to reach its full potential in the community.

If it fails, the original nonprofit maintains a good reputation. It is cheaper to create the 501c3 and hope for the best than it is to damage your reputation over a few thousand dollars. Passing it to an existing nonprofit is cheaper than starting a new one. It also has a better chance of success when handled by an existing management team.

The better decision is to ensure there is passion for the service before starting.

Unfortunately, communities change, missions change, and management changes. Sometimes it is necessary to discontinue providing a product or service regardless of the level of passion. Transferring it to someone else is the best way to discontinue it if you want to protect everyone’s reputation (board, executive, and agency). Remember only those who truly want it will take it.

Better decisions produce better results.

Mission Enablers

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Board Governance, Decision Making, Leadership, Management, Merger, sustainability | Comments Off