Ken Goldstein, MPPA

Ken Goldstein has been working in nonprofits and local government agencies from Santa Cruz, to Sacramento, and back to Silicon Valley, since 1989. He's been staff, volunteer, board member, executive director, and, since 2003, a consultant to local nonprofit organizations. For more on Ken's background, click here. If you are interested in retaining Ken's services, you may contact him at ken at

Tuesday, December 16, 2008

"Don't Panic!"

Here's a wonderful quote from a meeting I attended this morning of Santa Cruz County (California) nonprofit Executive Directors, discussing their response to the current financial crisis:

"Don't panic. Not because there isn't reason to panic - there is - but because panic doesn't work."

So, what is your organization doing to respond to the current economic crisis? Have you felt it yet, or have you somehow been spared? I've just set up a survey to gather your responses - Click Here to take survey - Thanks!

(And for those who've wondered if I'd ever blog again, yes, I'm still alive and working. Just working a bit too much in my current Interim ED position... dealing with the just these questions of whether or not we should be panicking.)

Thursday, September 25, 2008

Question: Seeking merger funds

From my email:
There are two nonprofits in my community that are considering a merger/acquisition scenario. I have advised them to bring in a consultant, which they will consider. Do you know of any capacity-building or other grants available that could help with the consultant and other costs of this major strategic move?
Redmond, Oregon
From my reply:

Usually funds for something like that are best sought locally. I can't think of any national foundations, off hand, that are interested in funding merger type activity.

Your best bet is to have honest (and confidential) conversations with the local community foundation, the local United Way, and some of the local funders who are already involved with one (or both) of the organizations.

Wednesday, September 03, 2008

Giuliani Makes the Choice Clear for Nonprofits

I'm watching the Republican National Convention right now, with former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani giving his speech. Let me recount a bit of dialogue I just heard. He was talking about the Democratic Candidate, Barack Obama, and critiquing his resume...
"He worked as a ... community organizer?"
(Rudy makes strange face)
(audience laughs)

"Yeah, he worked as a community organizer!
And that's just the first problem with his resume!"

Well, if you're a reader of this blog, you are probably familiar with people who work as community organizers, and are possibly one yourself. You know that it's tough work, underpaid work, and often thankless work. You know that it's nothing to make jokes about.

But not at the Republican National Convention, apparently. At the RNC, community organizing and nonprofit work is the stuff of humor, proof of inexperience, and a disqualifier for any "real" public policy work.

Well, I'm certain that the professional thing to do here would be to put my opinions on my personal blog, and keep this blog politics free and opinion free. But the stakes in this election are too high. I care too much about the nonprofit sector, and I care too much about this country to not post this here.

In Barack Obama we finally have a candidate for President who actually understands and has links to the nonprofit sector. In Michelle Obama we have even more nonprofit experience, as she's a former local leader for Public Allies, an excellent organization that I've had the pleasure to work with in my region.

The line is clear here. There is one presidential ticket that honors the work of the nonprofit sector, and one that mocks it. Which do you think will be better for us, and help us to do the work we need to do in our local communities?

This blog is proud to be officially endorsing Barack Obama for President of the United States.

(NOTE: Vice Presidential candidate Governor Sarah Palin just repeated the anti-community organizer slander, this time adding, "The difference between a mayor and a community organizer is that a mayor has responsibilities.")

Friday, July 25, 2008

Nonprofit Website Mistakes: Lack of Transparency

When people talk about mistakes nonprofits make with their websites, the first thing that comes to mind is usually either no direct donate button from the front page, or an unclear mission statement. But I'd like to focus on a different type of mistake; lack of transparency.

First off, what do I mean by "transparency?" I'm talking about communicating with your community (clients, members, potential donors, neighbors, elected officials, etc.) as openly, honestly, and fully about your operations as is practical and legal to do so.

And I'm not just talking about your programs and the great deeds that your organization performs. I assume that's already on your website (and if it's not, you need a far more remedial article than this one). I'm talking about your finances, your governance, and your management of the public trust.

Because that's what a nonprofit is: A public trust. You have been granted your 501(c)3 (and your special tax status) to produce something of benefit to the public, and the public is, in many very real ways, the ultimate shareholders of your corporation - even more so than your board members, clients, or staff.

These days the public finds it hard to trust in many institutions (and who can blame them). Lack of trust in nonprofits leads to lack of donations, and restrictions on what we can ultimately accomplish. By being as transparent as possible you inspire trust in your organization, and (hopefully) in the nonprofit sector as a whole. And trust, in turn, inspires donations.

So, how do you make your website "transparent?" Here are a few suggestions to get you started...

Post Your 990s - Your IRS form 990 tax returns are already public information to those who know where to find them (on, for example). But why make people look for them elsewhere? Have your accountant create a pdf file of your 990s and post them annually as soon as you have filed.

Post Your Audits - Show your donors that your finances are in order and have passed a critical inspection. You spend your money responsibly; let your community know.

Post Board Activity - Maybe full board meeting minutes would be a bit too detailed, but why not a monthly summary of board activity and decisions made? A good way to do this is with the next suggestion...

Start Blogging - Show that your efforts at transparency aren't just an annual activity coinciding with your audit and 990s. Make a regular effort to inform your constituents of what is happening behind the scenes in your organization. This could include staff changes, new funding received, even problems with the plumbing (who knows, maybe one of your readers can volunteer a solution!).

Contact Information! - I can't believe the number of nonprofit websites I visit that have a board listing (names only, no affiliations) and a senior staff listing, but then only one general information email address. How about full staff listings with all emails and more some information on your board members. If board members don't all want their emails listed, how about at least the board chair, or maybe a "catch-all" email ( that you can forward to each of them?

These are just a few ideas to get you going, I'm sure you can come up with many more once you start thinking about your organization, and how you communicate with your community.

Thursday, July 17, 2008

A winning dozen

The Getting Attention blog of nonprofit marketing guru Nancy Schwartz has today released its list of twelve "Exceptional Tagline Honorees."

Earlier this year, Nancy asked for "great tagline" nominations and received over 1,000 submissions. After 62 finalists were carefully selected, the 12 award winners were chosen by 3,062 nonprofit professionals who voted in an online poll.

The entire list of submitted taglines, details on finalists and award winners, and additional survey findings will be featured in The Nonprofit Tagline Report, to be published in September.

The awards, which Nancy expects to be conferred annually, represent the best taglines in all nonprofit sectors. Check out this year's winners circle at the Getting Attention blog and see how your tagline compares. What's that? You don't have a tagline?!? Then you better see Nancy...

Tuesday, July 15, 2008

The Board's Role in Supervising the Executive

I get lots of interesting questions by email, and I try to answer as many as I am qualified to give an opinion on. In this case, the sender is looking for your opinions, as well as my own:
Hi, Ken. I have a question for you and your readers. I am wondering about the duty line between Boards and an Executive Director of a non-profit. What is the role of the Board in supervising that E.D.? If there are problems on a regular basis with how the E.D. executes his/her goals and objectives (i.e. things that fall under the auspices of the E.D. and not the board) does the board deal with this as a normal supervisor would (asking for explanations, suggesting or requiring specific solutions?) or does the Board have to stay quiet? - Jenny - Albuquerque, NM
Jenny brings up a common problem; boards that don't properly carry out their duty as the Executive's supervisor.

While it is true that nonprofit boards should have no role in supervising other employees (all staff should report to the Executive Director or subordinate), the ED reports to the board, and it is the board's responsibility to ensure that the ED performs to their contract. That includes the things Jenny mentions (asking for explanations, suggesting or requiring specific solutions) all the way up to the removal of the ED, if necessary.

Equally important, and even more frequently forgotten, is the board's role in supervising a successful Executive Director. When EDs perform well, boards often feel they have met their obligations to the ED. The result is that years go by without a formal annual performance evaluation, and often without a raise, even to keep up with the cost of living.

So, yes, Jenny, the Board (or the executive committee of the board) does need to execute proper supervision and evaluation of the Executive Director - in both bad situations and good ones.

Do any other readers have anything else to add? Please post your comments below!

Tuesday, July 08, 2008

Return to blogging (part two)

Yesterday I apologized for not having posted for a long while, and put the blame on two factors: being very busy, and doing a bit of soul searching. Yesterday's post covered the busy part. Today I'll tell you a bit about what I've been thinking about.

I've now been an Interim Executive Director three times, and it's always interesting, but this last assignment went on for so long (nearly a year-and-a-half) that it became in many senses more like a "real job." So the assignment ending hit me in surprising ways. There is a very real sense of loss and emptiness, much like if a "real job" had unexpectedly come to end.

I'd already been examining my consulting practice and coming to the conclusion that writing grant proposals for a variety of organizations is not how I want to spend most of my time, and have been eliminating those assignments from my client list. For a variety of reasons, I feel that outside consultants can best serve an organization by giving them the knowledge to write their own proposals, and help on a limited basis. I have come to hold the belief that a nonprofit agency that completely outsources it's grant writing is making a strategic error, and probably not getting the best value on their investment, versus building that skill in-house.

So, with no more grant writing clients, and my long-term assignment coming to an end, I've had time to think about "what I want to do when I grow up." The basic options being: continue as is, just with fewer grant writing assignments; look for a "real job" as an Executive Director or other nonprofit leadership position; or "go corporate" and get a "real job" on the other side.

After a little exploration, and talking to several people about different options for me in the for-profit world, I've come to the obvious realization that it's just not for me. I am a nonprofit guy through and through. This was an exploration I had to go through (for the elusive dream of more money and a better retirement plan, etc.), but it was a silly idea.

But I did enjoy that last Interim ED position, and I do miss it more than I expected to. And so, while I'll continue to take some limited term consulting assignments right now, I think my long-term plan is to find a permanent Executive Director (or other senior leadership) position in the nonprofit sector.

Meanwhile, I'll get back to blogging, and shift back from "contemplative mode" to "active mode." I've been sent a great new book, Grassroots Philanthropy: Field NOtes of a Maverick Grantmaker by Bill Somerville and Fred Setterberg, that I'll be reviewing shortly too.

Thanks again for your patience and support.

Monday, July 07, 2008

Return to blogging

First I must thank all of you who continued check this blog site during my extended break in regular posting. I appreciate it very much, and is one of the reasons I've determined to start posting again.

My absence has been partly due to plain old being busy, and partly due to a bit of soul searching.

First the busy part. I was completing nearly one-and-a-half years as the Interim Executive Director of Grail Family Services in San Jose. It was a wonderful and satisfying experience, through which I learned much and gained terrific insights and experience. Yes, even as a consultant, and somebody with nearly twenty years of public service, half of it in leadership positions, I continue to learn every day.

The assignment began as a simple "caretaker" role, keeping daily operations running smoothly while we negotiated a merger. As the merger talks dragged on, more leadership was required as the normal course of things brought about staff changes and all the other crises that come at nonprofit organizations on a regular basis. After nearly ten months of negotiations, and a draft of the final agreement, it became clear that the merger was not in our best interest, and talks ended.

We then began a process of determining the best path for GFS. Should we pursue another merger? With whom? Should we hire a permanent ED? Could GFS be sustainable if it remained independent? Much time had been lost with developing new funding sources when we thought we were merging. Still, the more than a year of uncertainty had taken its toll on staff, and all agreed that finding a way to make the organization stable and successful on its own was the best avenue to pursue.

After a search of several months, and interviewing some wonderful candidates, we wound up re-hiring the previous Executive Director, who was once again available. The organization is on track for another great year. I completed my tenure as Interim ED about a month ago, but I am continuing as a consultant to assist with their upcoming Strategic Planning process.

And so, that completes the "too busy to blog" story. Tomorrow I'll tell you about the soul searching, and where I am now. Thanks again for your patience during this absence.

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

The End of Board Committees

Let's face it: board committees are usually bored committees, and rarely get anything done unless it's task and time specific, so why not just abolish them?

At least, that's the question being asked in the premier issue of 'Blue Avocado' - the new online magazine for people working and volunteering in the nonprofit sector. The site, directed and edited by Jan Masaoka (my former boss at CompassPoint Nonprofit Services), is "half magazine, half blog, half website" and its "aim is to engage and support the people of community nonprofits, the ones who do the heavy lifting in building social justice and strong communities, and who create and drive the ideas that change our world for the better."

Of the articles in the premier issue, which came out today, the one abolishing board committees really grabbed me as being provocative and helpful at the same time. Of course, you'll never get rid of all committees - nor should you - but with a handful of exceptions, board committees do not need be permanent standing structures, and their business can be better served with ad-hoc task-specific groups.

I see two main benefits right off: providing focus and eliminating burn-out. A project specific task force knows what it must accomplish, and by when it must accomplish it. And, by providing that direction, there's no drift or inertia from month-to-month as nothing seems to happen, making committee members bored, anxious, and fed up with board work entirely.

Check out Blue Avocado at and sign up for the e-newsletter, register an account (it's free, and allows you to leave comments), and join in the conversation.

Thursday, April 10, 2008

Walking for Early Literacy

On Saturday May 10 I will be taking part in the Human Race, a fundraising event for Silicon Valley nonprofit organizations. The Human Race is an annual event produced by the Volunteer Center of Silicon Valley that brings together hundreds of organizations from Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties. Taking part in an event like this provides each organization a "ready-made" fundraising event, without the hassle, effort, or costs of developing one of their own. Volunteer Centers throughout the state and nation hold similar events - Check it out for your own nonprofit.

I will be doing the 5K walk to raise funds for Grail Family Services (GFS), an organization in East San Jose that I have been serving on a consultant basis as Interim Executive Director for a little over a year now. And, of course, I'm asking for your support - Click here if you can pledge any amount of money to help our efforts.

GFS "fosters learning and the empowerment of vulnerable families with young children through the delivery of programs that educate, develop leadership skills, and build a sense of community." All GFS programs target parents and their young children ages 0-9, and are designed with community input to address the issues most important to the neighborhood. This approach enriches the child, as well as the parent, and helps them each on the path to success in school, in work, and in life.

Your sponsorship of my Human Race participation could mean:
  • $25 – five new books for the GFS Children's Library.
  • $50 – developmentally appropriate toys for GFS' child care program.
  • $100 – case management services for one parent.
  • $250 – four weeks of subsidized child care services for one low-income toddler.
  • $1,000 – eight weeks of literacy services to boost the reading skills of one child.
If you can help out, click here - And thank you for your support!

Wednesday, April 02, 2008

Introducing IssueLab

Just a quick note today: There's a new link in the "Blogroll" on the left side to IssueLab's newsfeed.

IssueLab "is an online publishing forum for nonprofit research. Each month we do an editorial CloseUp on a different issue that nonprofits are addressing in their own research work. This month we are focusing on research related to the issue of Volunteerism. You can check out the collection, which pulls work from an interesting cross-section of organizations, at"

The newsfeed (to your left) will bring you all sorts of good stuff.

Thursday, March 13, 2008

National Volunteer Week is Coming...

volunteers are beautiful people - let your inner beauty shine; volunteer

National Volunteer Week is coming up this April 27-May 3. It's the biggest volunteering event on the calendar, and it's a great opportunity for you to encourage socially minded folks (like your organization's supporters) to participate in local activities.

Head on over to the VolunteerMatch web site and read the press release to find out more about National Volunteer Week, and how your nonprofit can tie into this promotion.
“National Volunteer Week is a terrific opportunity to harness the growing, nationwide surge in volunteerism,” said Greg Baldwin, president of VolunteerMatch. “It affords a chance for individuals to reach out and discover fun and meaningful volunteer activities in their own neighborhoods.”
VolunteerMatch is helping transform the landscape of nonprofit outreach—connecting good people directly with good causes, and providing access to an entirely new generation of volunteers who are eager to contribute. Since 1998, volunteers have generated just over 3.4 million matches to the 56,784 local nonprofits registered with VolunteerMatch.
On a personal note, I generally do not use my blog to simply edit and repost press releases I receive in my email (if I did, I'd be posting three or four blogs a day). When I do pass along information from a press release it is because it is an organization or a cause that I believe in and find value in.

I have used VolunteerMatch to find volunteers for several nonprofit organizations and have found it easy to use and highly effective in recruiting quality volunteers. If you can possibly use the theme of National Volunteer Week in your recruitment efforts, I think you will find it well worth your effort.

Wednesday, March 05, 2008

Market failure and collusion in the philanthropic marketplace

That's a bit of a heady title, but stick with it and humor me for a minute or two longer. I'm going to use a lesson from basic economics 101 to explain why nonprofits are unnecessarily forced spend too much time and energy chasing dollars instead of achieving their missions.

Cast your mind back to college days. and remember that intro to economics class. Remember how the supply and demand curves are supposed to work? In a functioning market, each are at least somewhat elastic. When demand outpaces supply, shortages occur and prices rise till supply can catch up. When supply outpaces demand, prices begin to drop. In each case, the correction (either dropping prices or increased supply) brings the market back into equilibrium. Ta daa! The invisible hand at work.

When these forces fail to bring the market back to a working situation, for whatever reason, the resulting state is called a market failure. One possible cause of a market failure is collusion; where a number of players one side of the equation agree to withhold either supply or demand in order to manipulate the market for their own ends.

Okay, so now let's look at the market for foundation grants to nonprofits. It is an accepted fact of life that the demand far outpaces the number of grants awarded. We know that the rule of thumb is that only one in twelve proposals will be funded (some of us do somewhat better than that, but it's balanced by those who do worse), and that none of us who have been at it long can boast of a perfect record of every proposal funded.

Because of a low supply of grants from foundations, nonprofits pay a higher than market price for searching out, applying for, and managing what few grants are available to them. Economics 101. That higher price nonprofits pay to receive grants has to come from somewhere, so it comes from programs; from mission.

This would suggest that there's a shortage in the supply chain of charitable dollars. But that's simply not true. Foundations are sitting on massive endowments that could satisfy most any nonprofit's needs. These dollars have already been earmarked for charitable purposes and the donors have already received their tax benefits at the expense of the public treasury. So why are they not being distributed?

And that's where the collusion comes in. While the IRS requires that foundations spend out a minimum of five percent of their endowments each year, the majority of U.S. foundations have taken that five percent to be the industry standard (a few notable exception spend at higher rates, and they are to be commended).

In the face of a contracting economy, with rising demand for the social services provided by the nonprofit community matched with fewer dollars to pay for it, this collusion of foundations has become the single largest impediment to nonprofits succeeding at their missions and a danger to the public safety, health, and societal well-being.

Alright. Maybe I'm going a bit too far here. I like to exaggerate to make a point. But the fact stands: In tough times the community of foundations have the ability - and I would argue social responsibility - to step up to the plate and increase the flow of grants.

And, while we're at it, maybe they can cut some of the administrative burden associated with the process. Oops. I know. This time I've really gone too far.

Wednesday, February 27, 2008

Introducing the Angelcheeks Foundation

This posting is a bit personal, as well as nonprofit related. A friend of mine lost his infant son a year ago to SIDS. While the family had insurance that covered the expenses of putting his son to rest, what they learned through the process was how many families are completely unprepared for such a tragedy.

In living memory of their son, he and his wife have now founded the Angelcheeks Foundation, to make grants to families in need, and to education on issues surrounding Sudden Infant Death Syndrome.

Below, you will see a video by the family and their friends (yes, I'm in there somewhere) that was released today to promote the foundation. Please watch it, and if you are half as moved by it as I was, please consider donating.

Wednesday, January 23, 2008

Donors Versus Nonprofits

My postings on fundraising fees and rates get a lot of hits, and sometimes some heated discussion. My recent posting Yet more on percentage-based fundraising was no exception.

While some people have agreed with me that, "it's about time that donors put the needs of nonprofits ahead of their own," others have taken great exception to that. One such person is Barbara Ruth Saunders, who this morning wrote:
Aren't nonprofit organizations, in fact, supposed to be the vehicle by which DONORS direct their resources to goals which are socially important to the DONORS? The board should be determining how the organization can serve the goals. The staff should be executing the programs that support those strategies. But, I have a huge problem with the notion of nonprofits as being a means for a handful of grandiose people to exercise their social aims with other people's money!

That said, the immediate client of the fundraiser is the organization; the fundraiser helps the organization assure the DONORS that it is aligned with the DONORS' ultimate intentions.
To which I replied:
Thank you, Barbara, for your impassioned post, but I do respectfully disagree with your assertion that "nonprofit organizations [are] supposed to be the vehicle by which DONORS direct their resources to goals which are socially important to the DONORS."

I'd put phrase it more like, "Nonprofit organizations are supposed to be the vehicle by which a COMMUNITY achieves the goals that are socially important to it."

If a donor finds that particular nonprofit is doing work that he/she/they/it believes in, they should support that nonprofit.

But when the donor becomes the focus, nonprofits drift from their missions and only chase the money. Program decisions are made, not based on what is most needed or most effective, but based on the question, "What's fundable?"

Donors need to actually trust the professionals within nonprofits to know how to best achieve their mission. If donors don't trust nonprofits, they should simply invest their money elsewhere.

Your notion that nonprofits are "a handful of grandiose people [exercising] their social aims with other people's money" is simply insulting and only demonstrates your incredible disdain for nonprofit staff.
Was I out of line here? Have concepts of charity and philanthropy become so antiquated that there is no longer even a pretense of the donation being a gift?

Do donors really think that it is their place to mold nonprofits in their image and that the people who've dedicated their careers and their lives to serving their communities require such direction and babysitting from people who've never done such work?

Apparently so. Personally, I've had just about enough.

Thursday, January 17, 2008

The soul of philanthropy: when giving becomes receiving

Michael L. Wyland of Sumption & Wyland consulting has written an op-ed piece on Argus Leader (dot-com) under the unassuming title of "Accountability changes philanthropic landscape" that perfectly expresses what I'm sure so many of us have been thinking for years.

The opening paragraph reads:
"There has been a major change in philanthropy in recent years. Accountability and impact are increasing the demands placed on charities because the purpose of charity from the donor's perspective has changed. It's become acceptable, in the name of accountability, for philanthropy to be about receiving rather than about giving. Hypervigilant and misapplied accountability risks killing the soul of philanthropy upon which charities rely for support."
I will add to that the charge that this hyper-vigilant accountability is killing the ability of small, local, and grassroots nonprofits to operate at all. The costs of compliance are out of line with the costs of providing needed services, leaving these organizations no options but to either merge with a larger organization or close their doors.

As Mr. Wyland states, the IRS, and all the various nonprofit watch-dog groups that analyze our IRS filings, all base their evaluations on data that is "overwhelmingly financial in nature... As long as every transaction is documented and as long as no one's enriching themselves at the charity's expense, the IRS and the watchdogs are satisfied."

But what happens to the small nonprofit whose administrative expenses seem too high only because of an effort to comply with all the data collection, analysis, and reporting requirements of their funders? The same funders who will then use that nonprofits' high administrative expenses as a reason to discontinue funding them.

In another recent post here, I called out Paulette V. Maehara (president and CEO of AFP) for admonishing nonprofits to "put the needs of donors first." I believe that we've coddled and begged and babied the donor foundation long enough. We need to educate them about the needs of our clients, and how they are best served by locally provided community-based nonprofits, and, perhaps, on the true definition of the word "charity."

Thursday, January 10, 2008

Why Web 2.0 is important to small local nonprofits

There's lots of talk about how nonprofits should be using "Web 2.0" - interactive applications, two-way online communications, user generated content, "social media," etc. - perhaps so much so that it can be bewildering to smaller, grassroots organizations who are just struggling to get the word out locally and are wondering what they need with a World Wide Web.

The key for these organizations to remember is to ask how each of these applications relate to their on-the-ground strategy, and how to tie it in with what they are already doing.

Using video as an example, having a video on YouTube can be wonderful exposure, and you may actually inspire a donation or two from somebody in a different part of the country, but the real reason why you should be producing a video is to update your communications with your existing constituents.

Think of how much more powerful your board members will be in asking their networks for donations when they're always carrying around a DVD with your four minute video in their purses and briefcases. Much more effective than a few wrinkled brochures and far more appealing than your tired old PowerPoint presentation.

And, yes, that video should be posted on a public site, such as YouTube, but not because YouTube alone is going to attract donors to your cause, but because having YouTube host your video for free, and then using their embedding code to place it on your own web site, will both save you on your hosting costs and make your site more interesting and compelling to visitors and potential donors.

Blogging is important, not because it's the new hip trend (and frankly, it ain't that new anymore), but because it gets you in the habit of communicating regularly with your constituency - far more frequently than you ever could with newsletters and appeal letters - and is, again, far more cost effective than paper and postage.

It doesn't matter that your blog can be read around the world; target your message to your community and your key audience. They'll appreciate the immediacy and the transparency of these communications and reward you with more loyalty than ever before.

RSS feeds of your blogs, videos, etc., allow the people who care about your organization and your issues to receive, read, and act upon your communications in the manner that works best for them.

In each of these examples, the idea is not how Web 2.0 and new media can suddenly make a local grassroots nonprofit into a global powerhouse, it's about how these tools can be used to better communicate with, and expand, the base that you already have.