CompassPoint Nonprofit Services and The Meyer Foundation have just released a new report, "Daring to Lead 2006," exploring the leading causes of nonprofit executive burnout; in particular, widespread frustration with boards of directors and funders, and dissatisfaction with their pay.
We've heard much of this before - this report is a follow-up to their 2001 Daring to Lead - but the numbers are updated, and some of the recommendations are fresh. Perhaps the new report is most instructive, however, in pointing out how little actually has changed in the five years since the original report.
In both 2001 and 2006, 75% of executive directors reported that they were planning on leaving their position within five years. Nine percent of the current respondents are already in the process of leaving. Despite good recommendations in the original report, the complaints of EDs are largely the same (boards, funders, money).
As a sector are we not taking care of ourselves? Most of us get into the sector precicely because we put the needs of others ahead of our own needs. We know we could make more money in the private sector, but we do this work because we want to help, we want to make a difference.
But, at some point, we have to step back and make sure that our own needs are met. Nobody can give indefinitely when they are harming themselves. I believe that this realization is what is behind a lot of the nonprofit executive turnover.
The rapid turnover of leadership, however, harms the sector even more. So, what can we do to make the nonprofit sector more welcoming and nurturing for our executive leaders? The recommendations in Daring to Lead are a start, but this is something we all - board, staff, consultants, and volunteers - must come to terms with and make a priority for our organizations.
Download both, the 2001 and 2006 Daring to Lead reports from CompassPoint's web site.
Tags: nonprofit, leadership, nonprofit boards of directors, burnout, reports
Friday, April 28, 2006
Thursday, April 27, 2006
Show Me The Money in Santa Cruz
The California Association of Nonprofits (CAN), in partnership with the Community Foundations of Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties, are presenting Show Me the Money, a one-day conference on nonprofit finance practices.
The conference -- which will be held one week from today: Thursday, May 4, 2006 -- is designed to help you:
* Manage your finances.
* Enhance your human resources.
* Align management with mission.
* Get the inside scoop on policies impacting the way you work.
I won't be able to be there due to other obligations, but I've been to several CAN conferences in the past (both as participant and as a presenter) and they're always informative and fun events.
Our tendency in the nonprofit sector is to put a low priority on our own professional development. We tell ourselves that we simply don't have the time or the money. But we pay the price anyway in burn-out and staff turnover (more about this tomorrow). A few dollars spent on conferences and workshops is a direct investment your organization's future that continues to pay dividends long after the seminar is over.
See CAN's web site for more information and registration.
Tags: nonprofit, conferences, professional development
The conference -- which will be held one week from today: Thursday, May 4, 2006 -- is designed to help you:
* Manage your finances.
* Enhance your human resources.
* Align management with mission.
* Get the inside scoop on policies impacting the way you work.
I won't be able to be there due to other obligations, but I've been to several CAN conferences in the past (both as participant and as a presenter) and they're always informative and fun events.
Our tendency in the nonprofit sector is to put a low priority on our own professional development. We tell ourselves that we simply don't have the time or the money. But we pay the price anyway in burn-out and staff turnover (more about this tomorrow). A few dollars spent on conferences and workshops is a direct investment your organization's future that continues to pay dividends long after the seminar is over.
See CAN's web site for more information and registration.
Tags: nonprofit, conferences, professional development
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
What's a Squidoo?
Blue Sky Collaborative's blog has an excellent post about Squidoo Lenses and Nonprofits, and specifically, why nonprofits are not flocking to Squidoo the way founder Seth Godin thinks they should. What was that? ... Squidoo? ... Lenses?.
In brief, Squidoo is a free web site that allows users to build one-page mini-sites - called "lenses" - that focus on a particular topic that the "lens master" is an expert in. For nonprofits, the idea is that you would build a lens (or two, or three...) about your issue areas for the purposes of public education and self-promotion (and the possibility of earning a few cents in ad revenue). You could also get each of your supporters to build their own lens on the topic and link to you (and donate their ad revenue).
Now, just a few days ago, I was suggesting that you keep a blog. Am I telling you to do this too? Not necessarily. But I do think that both Squidoo and blogging are things that you should consider.
Direct mail is minimally effective. I can't think of anybody who likes to get phone solicitations. I believe is that the web is the best way to prospect for new supporters, and that to use it correctly requires that you keep up with the latest tools available. And that's why I take the time to blog about blogging and to tell you about things like Squidoo.
Here's an example of a personal biography lens (mine) to show you what a basic lens looks like. I've also made a lens on Fund Development Planning. I posted each of these based on things I had already written, and neither took more than 10-15 minutes to get set up.
For some excellent examples of how a nonprofit organization can use Squidoo to promote their cause, see the lenses put together by the Grameen Foundation: "Microfinance - Empowering the world's poorest people", "Poverty", and "The ONE Campaign".
By the way - The Blue Sky Collaborative and this site are each members of the Nonprofit Blog Exchange.
In brief, Squidoo is a free web site that allows users to build one-page mini-sites - called "lenses" - that focus on a particular topic that the "lens master" is an expert in. For nonprofits, the idea is that you would build a lens (or two, or three...) about your issue areas for the purposes of public education and self-promotion (and the possibility of earning a few cents in ad revenue). You could also get each of your supporters to build their own lens on the topic and link to you (and donate their ad revenue).
Now, just a few days ago, I was suggesting that you keep a blog. Am I telling you to do this too? Not necessarily. But I do think that both Squidoo and blogging are things that you should consider.
Direct mail is minimally effective. I can't think of anybody who likes to get phone solicitations. I believe is that the web is the best way to prospect for new supporters, and that to use it correctly requires that you keep up with the latest tools available. And that's why I take the time to blog about blogging and to tell you about things like Squidoo.
Here's an example of a personal biography lens (mine) to show you what a basic lens looks like. I've also made a lens on Fund Development Planning. I posted each of these based on things I had already written, and neither took more than 10-15 minutes to get set up.
For some excellent examples of how a nonprofit organization can use Squidoo to promote their cause, see the lenses put together by the Grameen Foundation: "Microfinance - Empowering the world's poorest people", "Poverty", and "The ONE Campaign".
By the way - The Blue Sky Collaborative and this site are each members of the Nonprofit Blog Exchange.
Triple A Prospects
When fundraising discussions get around to "who should we ask?" a few answers typically appear: "If only we could get Bill Gates...," "What about Oprah? Let's send her a letter..." I'm sure you've been a part of one of these discussions. They're fun, but not very productive.
The reason why this is not a fruitful road to go down is that you're only qualifying prospects by one criteria: They're rich. They have - in theory - the ability to donate large sums of money.
This morning, I'd like to share the "Triple A" system of rating prospects. In this way of thinking, ability to donate is the third and final "A" qualifier. Why last? Because there a plenty of rich people (and foundations and companies...) out there. I suggest you start with an "A" a bit closer to home:
Access: Big gift or small gift, your best prospects are those you already know or who are close to those you know. Because if you don't have a way to get to the ask, it's all just a fantasy. If one of your board members is Melinda Gates' first cousin, you might be in luck. Otherwise, you can probably take Bill off your list.
You might want to rank your prospects by level of access, beginning with those already on your donor list, going out one level to the friends and family of your staff and board members, then another level to the business associates of your current donors, etc. Start with that inner circle, and build gradually into the outer concentric circles.
Affinity for your cause: After access, affinity is a must requirement. If the prospect hasn't shown an interest in your cause - or worse, has shown that they oppose it - you're not going to get anywhere no matter how close you are. When brainstorming prospects with your team, be sure each name added includes some evidence of an affinity for your organization or the type of work that you do.
Only after you've rated your prospects by level of access and weeded out those for whom there's no affinity, can you go on to the third level:
Ability: I'm careful here to label this "ability," and not "affluence." While affluence might describe the donor's current financial standing, ability can also imply growth potential. A middle-income donor who has the potential to be a steady donor over many years, including a potential planned gift, is just as good (and maybe better) than a richer person may make a one-time gift then move on to the next cause.
Yes, you have to rank your prospects by their potential gift size, but don't be too quick to discard those whose resources aren't immediately apparent. This is why we use all three "A"s in our rankings, and don't just allow ourselves to be blinded by the money.
The reason why this is not a fruitful road to go down is that you're only qualifying prospects by one criteria: They're rich. They have - in theory - the ability to donate large sums of money.
This morning, I'd like to share the "Triple A" system of rating prospects. In this way of thinking, ability to donate is the third and final "A" qualifier. Why last? Because there a plenty of rich people (and foundations and companies...) out there. I suggest you start with an "A" a bit closer to home:
Access: Big gift or small gift, your best prospects are those you already know or who are close to those you know. Because if you don't have a way to get to the ask, it's all just a fantasy. If one of your board members is Melinda Gates' first cousin, you might be in luck. Otherwise, you can probably take Bill off your list.
You might want to rank your prospects by level of access, beginning with those already on your donor list, going out one level to the friends and family of your staff and board members, then another level to the business associates of your current donors, etc. Start with that inner circle, and build gradually into the outer concentric circles.
Affinity for your cause: After access, affinity is a must requirement. If the prospect hasn't shown an interest in your cause - or worse, has shown that they oppose it - you're not going to get anywhere no matter how close you are. When brainstorming prospects with your team, be sure each name added includes some evidence of an affinity for your organization or the type of work that you do.
Only after you've rated your prospects by level of access and weeded out those for whom there's no affinity, can you go on to the third level:
Ability: I'm careful here to label this "ability," and not "affluence." While affluence might describe the donor's current financial standing, ability can also imply growth potential. A middle-income donor who has the potential to be a steady donor over many years, including a potential planned gift, is just as good (and maybe better) than a richer person may make a one-time gift then move on to the next cause.
Yes, you have to rank your prospects by their potential gift size, but don't be too quick to discard those whose resources aren't immediately apparent. This is why we use all three "A"s in our rankings, and don't just allow ourselves to be blinded by the money.
Saturday, April 22, 2006
Join Together and Find Your Funding!
The other day, I posted about a great general grants resource newsletter from Charity Channel. Today, I'd like to share one that is a little more specific.
It is the Join Together Direct Funding News from jointogether.org. There are far fewer resources listed each week in this newsletter, but they are all specifically targeted to fighting alcohol and drug addiction and related issues.
These aren't your organization's issue areas? Fine! This is just an example of what is out there for you. Use Google to search on your issue areas plus "funding" plus "newsletter" and see what comes up. You may be pleasantly surprised by what you find that you've been missing.
It is the Join Together Direct Funding News from jointogether.org. There are far fewer resources listed each week in this newsletter, but they are all specifically targeted to fighting alcohol and drug addiction and related issues.
These aren't your organization's issue areas? Fine! This is just an example of what is out there for you. Use Google to search on your issue areas plus "funding" plus "newsletter" and see what comes up. You may be pleasantly surprised by what you find that you've been missing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)