Transitions and Updates

 Greetings blog readers! While I don't blog nearly as much as I used to, I'm still here, and still quite busy.

I'm in the midst of wrapping up an Interim Executive Director position, and already beginning another long-term contract and scheduling trainings for 2022!

First the Interim job... Since May of 2020 (second month of "shelter-in-place") I've been the IED for Friends of Oakland Animal Services (FOAS). I will always think of FOAS as my "pandemic position," as so much of the experience was colored by the ongoing response to COVID-19, and 95% of the work had to be done virtually, online.

The assignment started with a merger exploration. After several months of (Zoom) meetings with the other nonprofit we all reached the conclusion that, while we were all committed to some form of future collaboration, a full merger was not appropriate at this time.

We then turned our attention to getting ready to hire FOAS' first permanent Executive Director. This included putting fiscal controls into place, creating administrative policies and procedures, and getting our staff benefits for the first time. An old colleague from CompassPoint days came out of retirement to help us with interviewing stakeholders and doing an organizational assessment. 

FOAS has now brought on an excellent young ED who is well positioned to grow the organization over the next several years. I'm still on contract to provide some support as needed, but he's doing great.

My new long-term contract is with the Recovery Cafe Network. I had previously been the Executive Director for Recovery Cafe San Jose (2015-2019), and for the past two years I've been a founding Board member helping to launch Recovery Cafe Santa Cruz. 

Obviously, I'm a fan of the RC model, and feel it is a needed and successful approach to providing long-term support for addiction, homelessness, mental health challenges, and recovery from a thousand other life traumas.

My contract (part time) is to be a "California Catalyst," providing technical support and guidance to new emerging Cafes in the region, identifying others who may be interested in implementing the model, and developing some regional funding for all the local Cafes.

My online courses in Grant Proposal Writing and Board Basics are continuing, and doing well, and have led to my first East Coast in-person training contract! I will be doing a version of the Board training, and a session on dealing with organizational change in South Carolina in March 2022 (more on that later).

As the world seems to emerging from the worst of the pandemic into a new reality, I am pleased with where I am, and the work that I'm doing. I hope things are well for you, too. Thank you for reading.

The Virtual Interim ED

A few weeks ago I began a new consulting gig as the Interim Executive Director of the Friends of Oakland Animal Services (FOAS).

No big new thing there. I've taken Interim ED assignments half a dozen times before. But I've not taken an assignment like this during a time of official Shelter-in-Place orders (but, really, who has?).

Previously, the only "virtual" consulting I've done has been limited to very short engagements. A few conversations, and advice, dispensed by phone or email. I've also been conducting my Basic Grant Proposal Writing course online, but again, for each student, it's a limited amount of contact and a few messages exchanged while they complete the class.

This is an entirely new adventure, with my work - at least to start - being conducted entirely online, via email, phone, and a seeming endless number of Zoom and Google Meet video calls. It's a very different experience, having staff that I've never in person, and building relationships with them, and with my Board members.

Hopefully, it won't be too many more weeks before the Shelter-in-Place restrictions in the Bay Area ease to the point where we can meet "in real life," but even after that, it won't be a daily thing. This is a small organization, with no actual office space. They mostly worked remotely already. When shelter-in-place ends, many of our regular meetings may be in person, but the bulk of the work will still be done remotely.

At FOAS, our work is changing along with the rest of the world during this global pandemic. We will find ways to transform the organization that will be stronger and even more successful than before shelter-in-place. This is a new and different way for me to be an Interim ED, but the challenge is exciting, and I'm looking forward to seeing what develops.

I'm Back

After four years of working as a "permanent" full-time Executive Director, launching a start-up nonprofit, and only taking a few short-term consulting gigs from existing clients, I am once again available for new opportunities.

So, what have I been doing these four years? I took on the challenge of being the first Executive Director of Recovery Cafe San Jose. And, yes, there were many challenges and frustrations, but it was also one of the greatest experiences of my professional life.

RCSJ is a healing community for those traumatized by addiction, homelessness, and mental health challenges. Through support groups, classes, community meals, and social activities, members build their recovery capital, recognize their self-worth, and achieve their personal goals.

When I arrived, the Cafe had only been operating for about one year, and was only open three days each week, and serving four meals. Of those meals, only one was prepared fresh in-house; the others were delivered by another partner organization. They are now open five days each week, and serving seven meals, all created in their own state-of-the-art, commercial quality kitchen.

In 2015, there were only had about 50 members who were actually participating in their Recovery Circles regularly. There were no consequences for missed Circles, and not much direction for what was expected of members besides showing up.

As I leave,  membership is over 160, with all members actively sharing in Circles and a number of other activities, and holding themselves (and their peers) accountable for being present and participating. When they're going to miss a Circle, they call in to make sure they don't lose their valued membership.

In 2015, the Cafe had a handful of Circles, and a few drop-in activities. Now there is a full schedule of Circles, a robust School for Recovery curriculum, and a Community Participation Program that uses one-on-one kitchen and barista training to build self-esteem and social skills, as well as job skills.

Then, the Cafe had not yet lifted any members up to be peer leaders. Now 30% of Circles are peer led, members have created School for Recovery classes, taken charge of the coffee bar, participated in a planning retreat and program committee meetings, and taken on other leadership roles.

Along the way we also did a $1.2 million renovation of the Cafe itself, financed through CDBG funds, and all the delays, bureaucracy, endless meetings, and hard work that implies. Not to forget operating programs at a different location while managing the construction at home base.

Even with all that, much of what we did in the last four years was behind the scenes. When I walked in, basic things like Worker's Comp coverage were lacking, the financial reports to the board had the same wrong figure in the "balance forward" space month after month, there were no policies on holidays, time off, or benefits, etc., etc. Needless to say, that was all corrected, and they are now in full compliance legally and with best practices of proper financial systems and reporting, and have completed several successful audits.

In those four years, I took RCSJ from being barely recognized or understood, to being held up by our peer organizations as a crucial part of the local effort to end homelessness, including being recognized by the Santa Clara County Behavioral Health Board as a "2017 Agency Community Hero."

But what I am most proud of and grateful for is the opportunity to have been a part of the lives of the Cafe members. It is their strength that kept me going and kept me humble. It is their example of striving for something better that inspired me to hold on to the highest ideals of what the Cafe can and should be.

It is sad to end this chapter of my career, but it is time to move on and apply these lessons in the next big challenge.

Challenges of an Interim Executive Director

Several weeks ago I had the pleasure of being interviewed by Kirsten Bullock for her Nonprofit Leaders Network podcast. The conversation turned quickly to my experiences over the years as an Interim Executive Director.

Whether your organization is thinking of using an Interim ED, or whether you are a consultant thinking of getting into this sort of work, I hope you will find some advice in this conversation that will help you navigate the relationship successfully.

We talked about staff and board relationships, priority setting, advice gathering, communications, self-care, and the million other considerations to think about when entering into an Interim situation.

Kirsten asked great questions, and the time on the phone with her passed quickly. And she sent me a nice box of cookies when it was all over.

You can listen to our interview, as well as other great podcasts, at the Nonprofit Leaders Network website.

Nonprofit Rescue: The Pitch

We all have dreams for the nonprofit sector: increased individual giving, more effective boards, simplified government grant applications, better trained staff... Well, one of my dreams for the sector is greater public understanding of the nuts and bolts of how nonprofits operate, and I've got an idea for implementing it: a reality TV show.

So far the only time real, community, grass-roots nonprofits have been seen on reality TV is on shows like the Secret Millionaire. Each week a different successful business person gets in touch with the broader community by masquerading as a "regular person." They wander the streets, find struggling community programs, and get involved. The programs are typically run on a shoe-string by a founder who never collects a salary, but keeps things going against all odds. At the end of the show, the millionaire reveals his or her true identity and writes a large check, saving the day.

This perpetuates many myths that harm the sector. First, that organizations do not need professional, paid management to be effective. Secondly, that all they need to continue operating is for a single major donor to magically show up on their doorstep. Third, and perhaps most detrimental, that an organization which has never had a budget greater than $25,000/year can suddenly accept a $50,000 donation without any capacity building assistance and maintain that level of service once that cash is spent.

My idea is a bit different. Picture Secret Millionaire meets Restaurant Impossible. Restaurant Impossible (like Kitchen Nightmares with Gordon Ramsey) features chef Robert Irvine traveling the country and fixing our restaurants one at a time. In each episode he enters a new restaurant and assesses the food, the cleanliness, the business practices, the decor, and the owner/manager's personal problems and has 48 hours to fix them all with the help of his small team. By the end of the show, the food is delicious, the service is excellent, the walls are painted, the feuding owners are in love again, and the rats have been vanquished from the kitchen.

So, now, I give you the pitch for my new series, Nonprofit Rescue! Here's how a typical episode will run:

In the opening scene I enter the office of a small, neighborhood family resource center. The program offerings are strong - brochures for parenting classes, rental assistance, health care referrals, senior meals, etc., are strewn around the lobby - but there is no receptionist to greet me as I enter, leaving me free to wander around. I find client files open on unattended desks, and finally stumble into the conference room where the board chair and the executive director are fiercely arguing about the budget and why donations are lagging. It's several minutes before they notice me.

Over the next few scenes I meet privately with staff and clients. Clients tell me this used to be a great resource for the community. Now they only come to get a bus pass (when available) so they can go to a different agency downtown where there is better case management and follow-up. Staff are demoralized by the constant fighting and several rounds of lay-offs.

I get to work on the issues with my team of expert consultants. The next scenes are hectic as we cut back and forth between a strategic planning session, a community town hall to find out what services are needed, one-on-one meetings with funders and local elected officials, and the removal (and smashing) of any donated PCs powered by an Intel 286 processor. Between these clips, the board chair and ED each privately complain about each other to the camera. I meet with them each to discuss their proper roles and expectations.

After the final break comes the big reveal of the "new" agency. It starts with board, staff, and community members standing on the street. Our designer pulls a rope that drops the tarp covering their new sign. A new logo is revealed that is warmer and more welcoming than the old one that people said reminded them of the signage at a Soviet prison. We enter and see a well-organized and staffed reception area. Once in the conference room, we give binders to all board and staff with the new Strategic Plan (including a strong, realistic Fund Development Plan), graphics guidelines, privacy policies, Board handbook with member agreements and expectations, and an updated Employee Handbook with clear personnel policies.

The ED and Board Chair are given a template for their monthly board meeting agenda and a simple format for a one-page dashboard report that includes all the pertinent data they need to watch to not fall behind on their goals. The ED and Board Chair embrace; there are tears in everybody's eyes. Consulting has saved another community nonprofit. I wish them well and move on to the next week's challenge.

So, what do you think? Do any of you have any connections at the A&E network to help me set up a meeting? Or, maybe, it's just a dream...

"Have the consultant do it"?

The title of this post is written with tongue in cheek, but it does get to what's often a fine line between consulting and contracting. Even when talking with other nonprofit consultants, we don't always agree on where we should draw the line between performing tasks for our client organizations and empowering them to perform these tasks themselves.

As a prime example, when I started as an independent consultant, back in December 2003, one of the main things I did was grant proposal writing. Now, I will rarely accept those types of assignments. Basically, over time, I came to realize that the client was better served by my helping them gain the capacity to write grants in-house. One of my favorite things to do is when I teach workshops on proposal writing (next workshop is August 24 in Santa Cruz!).

Of course, there are times when it's quite legitimate to hire a contract proposal writer to supplement an organization's own capacity, and I'm happy to assist in those situations. But I believe that fund development is so central to any nonprofit organization's survival, that outsourcing it should never be more than a step along the way to building their own abilities.

There are other tasks, however, that are should almost always be outsourced. Among these, in my opinion, is facilitating a strategic planning session. Your organization may have leaders with excellent facilitation skills, but at a planning retreat they are needed as participants. A good facilitator should be neutral, and not a part of any political dynamic that exists in the group, or have a stake in any decisions that the group makes. A good facilitator empowers everybody in the room to speak and be heard, something that's not always comfortable or possible when there's a boss-worker dynamic present.

So, the next time you're in a meeting, and you hear the words, "We'll have a consultant do it," think carefully about what you are asking a consultant to do, and whether it is truly empowering and adding to your capacity to meet your mission.

About Interim Executive Director Services

There are many times in the life cycle of a nonprofit organization when it is appropriate to hire an interim CEO (or executive director) instead of bringing in permanent leadership:

• The loss of a long-term leader or founder,
• A change in strategic direction,
• Time to review long-term strategy,
• A financial or other management crisis that requires special skills,
• Consideration or negotiation of a merger.

Interim staff leadership during a period of transition gives a board of directors the time necessary to make appropriate strategic decisions. The use of a consultant as interim brings additional industry experience to the table in guiding the board through the strategy setting and transition process.

I have served as an interim executive director for five different organizations, each with a unique situation, and each with successful results for that organization.

• Two of my interim assignments resulted in successful mergers. One of a small, single-program agency into a larger regional organization, and the other of a mid-sized multi-program, single-topic agency into a larger regional organization. In each case I served as part of the negotiating team, protecting the interests of my client, and managing communications to staff, as well as managing day-to-day operations of the organization.
• A third assignment began with merger negotiations, but for strategic reasons the merger agreement was never completed. At that time the focus of the assignment became stabilization and sustainability of the organization before beginning a search for a new, permanent executive director.
• With another organization, I was asked to bring it back from the brink of bankruptcy after mismanagement by the previous executive director. My focus here was on bringing in new funding, re-negotiating a building purchase agreement, cutting the operating budget by 20%, and rebuilding the board from four to eleven members, before beginning the search for a new, permanent executive director.
• In only one situation was I asked to investigate, and then implement, a plan for bankruptcy and an orderly shut down of operations. Before proceeding with the shut-down, I held private interviews with all stakeholders, including funders, clients, board members, and others in the community, as well as other nonprofit leaders who had gone through bankruptcies.

To discuss the needs of your organization, please contact me at ken at goldstein.net. If I feel we may have a fit, we will arrange an initial meeting at which we will discuss your organization's situation and needs and create a personalized plan.

Interviewed on "The Vault"

I've recently been interviewed by The Vault - an online career information and research site - about how I got into nonprofit consulting. The interview, conducted by Alex Tuttle, can be found by clicking Career Paths: Nonprofit Consultant.

I enjoyed doing the interview, and thought the questions were well thought out and helpful to others considering a career in nonprofit consulting, or just wondering what a nonprofit consultant does.

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.

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.

Yet more on percentage-based fundraising - AFP ups the ante

Just other day I posted an email exchange I had in which my correspondent argued that, contrary to what AFP (Association of Professional Fundraisers) and others may say, there are times when when contingency or percentage-based fundraising fees may actually be more ethical than flat fee or hourly rates. The argument was essentially that small organizations (indeed, most any nonprofit) can ill afford to pay up front for grant writing or other fundraising services that may or may not result in donations or grants to the organization. The impact of such charging, according to my anonymous letter writer, was detrimental to the sector.

Well, now the AFP has upped the ante in this ongoing discussion, by trying to raise it from being an ethical question, to being a legal one. AFP has now renewed it's call on Congress to officially ban the practice of all percentage-fee based fundraising. This comes on the heals of AFP conducting a survey in which they found that the organizations with the highest fundraising costs were those that paid their fundraisers by percentage.

According to Paulette V. Maehara, CFRE, CAE, president and CEO of AFP:

These are causes that are near and dear to the hearts of all Americans, but the public's generosity is being abused. Congress needs to act to ban percentage-based fundraising so that the public can rest assured that charities and their fundraising firms are putting the needs of donors first.

Now, let me reiterate, that I have always followed the AFP code, and have never charged a contingency fee for grant writing or any other services. But let's take a look at the last few words of that paragraph: "... [put] the needs of donors first.".

Donors first, eh? Not the sustainability of the nonprofit organizations that don't have the cash-flow to pay upfront for fundraising with no guarantee of success? Not ... oh, I don't know ... the clients and communities served by the nonprofit sector?

Again, I still believe that a set fee for services is the proper way to go in most situations, but more and more I'm convinced that a compromise can be reached where nonprofits are not bankrupted by fundraising costs, and contingency fees, with set caps, may be used that meet the needs of everybody involved.

And I also firmly believe that it's about time that donors put the needs of nonprofits ahead of their own.

A different point of view...

One of the most popular posts on this blog is one the earliest. It is also the one that seems to upset the most people. I'm referring, of course, to my posting on nonprofit grant writing fees versus commissions. In that posting, I explained why I follow the AFP Code of Ethics and refuse to write grants on a contingency basis.

Many people have written to me, or commented on the posting, that they don't understand why contingency payment is bad, and I've tried to explain and re-explain the AFP position (see the links for details). It's not that contingency payment is illegal, it's just against the industry standard, considered an ethical violation by many, and (perhaps most important) frowned upon by the very funders that we're applying to.

But, so far, nobody has given me a compelling reason to question that position. Until last week...

Here's an excerpt from an email conversation I've been having (since it involves a potential ethics violation, I'm keeping the author anonymous - if the author wants to take credit in the comments, that's up to them):

I'll add some comments on the "ethics" of contingencies. Standards set up by grantwriting boards and societies are generally self-serving. Many of the ministries that I support cannot afford Ph.D level research and writing but their causes do merit funding. For example, I am working with a group building a rap studio for positive, drug-free support in one of the most crime ridden neighborhoods in Minneapolis. They don't have the money to risk $50-75 per hour on grants that may not get funded.

Our resolution is to bill at $20 per hour which they can afford, and then bill at $75 for time after the award, if and when it comes. Quite frankly, the discussion of ethics that I have researched regarding these issues have all centered around putative issues of the appearance of integrity on behalf of the grantwriter (is it or is it not a kickback) and no dialogue has been forthcoming about the IMPACT our services have on the organizations we help support and the clients they serve.

Clients that can afford to pay full scale on the front end are billed in this manner, but those that cannot should not be ignored in the funding process because of self-serving billing practices developed by "grant writing professionals." If that is the standards developed by these societies then I will take the position of Groucho Marx, "I wouldn't join any club that would have me as a member."

I certainly cannot dispute the self-serving aspect of the AFP code; after-all, I need to pay my mortgage and bills and can ill afford to wait months on payment for my work - a payment that may or may not ever materialize.

But I certainly hear the point about the impact on our clients loud and clear. This is not something I've been blind to, and have felt guilty and shamed in times when my work for a client has not immediately resulted in grants that far exceeded my fees. This frustration is part of why I've lately been trying to minimize the amount of grant writing I do as opposed to other services.

I still feel there are valid points to the AFP prohibition against contingency fees, and until the funder community comes to a consensus to the contrary, the grant writers are not likely to change their practices.

But what about those smaller nonprofits that can ill afford to pay for fundraising upfront? How does a startup start up if they cannot raise those first dollars on a contingency? In a very real way, our insistence on the purity of our image is yet another roadblock that grassroots organizations face in their struggle to serve our communities.

Still here, Back to work, Answering questions

Thanks to all my readers with being patient through a summer of irregular blogging, including this last three week silence. Vacation time is necessary to recharge the batteries, and I spent a portion of that time in Maui, and the rest of it catching back up on my work. Things should be getting back to "normal" and regular posting over the next week or so.

Yesterday I was meeting with a new potential client and we had the usual conversation where I asked the details of their programs and fundraising, and they asked me about rates and deliverables. Then, one of the women I was meeting with asked a question I'd never gotten before; "Have you ever turned down a client for ethical reasons?"

I think what she was really getting at was, will I work with just any organization, or only those I believe in. And the answer is certainly that I'm picky about with whom I work.

I've responded to a couple of inquiries from potential clients with a polite, "I'm busy, why don't you try..." That's rarely happened, but yes, I do need to be able to believe in the organization I'm trying to help. When I do turn a client down, I do still try to be respectful. While I may not agree with their cause, I acknowledge their right to do that work... with another consultant.

Missions I don't care for are not the only reason I've turned clients down, or dropped them. Here are two examples of organizations I initially thought were good, that I later decided I couldn't work with.

One began positively enough, but the ED wanted several changes in the contract, and the long negotiations over that convinced me it would not be a good working relationship. I suggested to him that "perhaps this is not a good time, why don't we talk again in six months?" My feeling is that life is too short to work with people who bring you unneeded stress.

Another organization that I did contract with for grant writing kept switching who my contact was, and more importantly, what their budget was. It became clear that while they weren't necessary crooked, they were certainly not able to manage their finances properly, and I couldn't be sure that grant money I was asking for would be spent per the proposals I was writing. I ended that relationship quickly.

So, yes, I do have criteria. I have to believe in the cause, I have to actually like the people I'll be working with, I have to know that I can accomplish the task, and I have to be sure that the results of our contract (whether a grant or a strategic plan, etc.) will be managed properly. If those criteria aren't there, I don't want to waste my time or their money.

So, how was your summer?

Painless Strategic Planning

The Nonprofiteer today has a great posting on why funders often ask for your nonprofit's Strategic Plan, and offers a fairly painless outline of a quick and useful planning process.

First, to the question of "Why plan?" the Nonprofiteer offers this:

"Serve as many people as possible" is not a strategic plan; it's a mission--and a relatively uninspiring one, at that. You might try explaining the difference to your ED this way: the mission says what you're going to do, while the strategic plan says how.

And why do funders care about the how? Well, the how gets right to the heart of how you are going to be spending their money. A look at your Strategic Plan will also give them a little insight into your organization's broader goals, potential issues, and future vision -- and get a sense of whether or not your proposal to them is an integral part of that vision.

And the planning process? The Nonprofiteer says it need not be an over-long, over-tedious affair "resulting in a notebook which will collect dust on your shelf," and I couldn't agree more. To be useful, a plan has to be usable. It's got to directly address the issues your organization is facing, any obstacles you've identified to achieving your mission, and offer workable, realistic solutions along with a timeline and identification of the person or persons responsible.

I'll also be a little self-serving here, and include this last quote from the posting:

...It's useful to have a paid person to act as facilitator and scrivener, especially because an outsider can ask the questions all the insiders are too polite or too shy to ask: "Why don't you have a Board give-or-get? What do you mean, you don't have a computer system?"

If you absolutely positively can't bring in a paid consultant, you can do it yourself, with the Board chair acting as facilitator, the team reporters writing their own reports, and the staff formulating it all into a plan; but it'll take longer and you'll fare worse.

As somebody who's done a fair amount of facilitation (and attended a seemingly unfair amount of meetings), I can tell you that's it's nearly impossible to do justice to the role of facilitator and be a full participant at the same time. And the point about having an outside "expert" to point out best practices cannot be over-stressed.

Carnival of Nonprofit Consultants

It is my honor, once again, to host the Carnival of Nonprofit Consultants. For those new to blog carnivals, they are a fun way to focus in on a topic and learn about new blogs. This particular carnival was founded by Kivi Leroux Miller of writing911.com.

One of the difficult rules of this carnival is narrowing all the entries down to only the seven best posts of the previous two weeks. That is, the difficult part for the host - for you, the reader, it's a benefit. So, here are the top seven posts that I received (click on the description to go to the blog post):

Nedra Kline Weinreich - On the importance of making your product concrete in social marketing and fundraising

Maryann Devine - On the need for failure, or at least risking failure. Risk taking in fundraising.

Paul Jones - On the top five and bottom five cause-related marketing campaigns of 2006.

Jeff Brooks - On nonprofit "branding" as building a movement.

Nancy Schwartz - On public speaking and making sure your message is heard.

Heather Carpenter - On strategic planning.

Jack Yoest - On nonprofit corporate governance: The Rotary.

Thank you for joining us on this round-up of what's happening on the nonprofit consulting blogs. Happy reading, and best of luck in 2007.

New Nonprofit Resource Site

Here's a new web site from a colleague of mine, Nancy Neal of Augment Direct (augmentdirect.com). There are, of course, sections about her consulting and coaching services, but also check out the free resources.

Nancy has a monthly e-newsletter, Building Relationships, a long (and growing) list of links, and an excellent download (pdf), Principled Fundraising 101. The download is the first course in what she promises will be the "College of Fundraising Knowledge."

I've known Nancy for several years, going back to my time as Silicon Valley Director for CompassPoint Nonprofit Services and Nancy was one of our workshop presenters. I still see her often at AFP and other nonprofit / fundraising / consulting events.

Speaking of CompassPoint workshops... I have one coming up in 10 days: Introduction to Fund Development Planning. This is a half-day course that will be taught at the Peninsula Community Foundation in San Mateo. (Click for registration details). If you can't make it to San Mateo, consider my book on the same topic.

I am also working on a new workshop on Effective Board Committees. This will be a panel discussion and will probably be held in November at CompassPoint's new Milpitas facility. (Look for the registration link here when details are confirmed).

Tags: nonprofit, resources, fundraising, workshops, consulting

The Fifth Requirement

Leila Johnson, of the Data-Scribe blog, has a great post on 5 Things to Demand from a Consultant. (Data-Scribe provides database, Web site, Internet branding, and software training services for nonprofits, associations, and small businesses.)

The first four are good advice, but fairly basic:

1. A nondisclosure agreement,
2. Past project samples or references,
3. A written contract or a willingness to sign yours, and
4. Great listening skills.

These are all things that are commonly advised, and I am happy to supply to my clients and potential clients. What got my attention, though, was #5, An interest in what you do.

It got my attention because I consider it to be a basic requirement, but it is rarely said - or, at least, not said enough. When looking for consultants or freelance writers the focus is naturally on the skills, background, and history of the candidate. But a good fit is also essential - particularly for nonprofit organizations.

On the Goldstein Consulting web site, I have always said:

I only accept clients and projects that I believe in. When I accept your assignment, your mission becomes my mission and I am committed to your success.

I believe this completely. I could not accept an assignment - no matter how lucrative it might be - with an agency that has a mission I'm against. I have, in fact, turned such organizations down.

When you are interviewing your potential consultant or freelancer, after you get through the resume, take some time to get to know the person. What do they believe in? Will they be as committed to your mission as you are? Or will they only be committed to sending you an invoice?

Tags: nonprofit, consulting, freelance, mission, client, interview

About Grant Writing Fees & Commissions

As a professional grant writer, I usually charge an hourly fee, or sometimes a flat fee per project. Never do I charge a percentage of funds received or in any other way work on spec or contingency.

First off, this is just accepted professional practice in the nonprofit industry. Second, as a professional I need to be paid fairly for my work. But, most importantly, it is a matter of ethics.

I always strive to fully abide by the code of ethics published by the AFP (Association of Fundraising Professionals), which states, "Members shall not accept compensation that is based on a percentage of contributions; nor shall they accept finder's fees."

Still, there are some organizations that will expect to pay for proposal writing only when it is successful, and there are those consultants who will accept that. I have often had conversations where I've had to explain why this is considered an unethical practice.

Yesterday I came across an essay by Goodwin Deacon, founder of the Puget Sound Grantwriters Association, that goes beyond simply saying "it's unethical" to explaining why funders frown upon the practice.

The bottom line in her essay is, as I've also always said, even if a grant writer doesn't mind being paid on contingency, "such an arrangement is basically a kick-back, and therefore unethical." Would you want to support a charity that gave kick-backs? Didn't think so.