Nonprofit University Blog

I don’t like being considered second best.  Yet, when I hear people looking to the nonprofit sector as the top choice for their “encore career” (don’t even like that term!), that’s what I hear.

Oh, now that you have done the real work of your life, go to the nonprofit sector.  Forget that thinking!  We are not second best.  Not good enough for the first choice of a career, but okay for the encore—the light, flip, “everyone can do it at the drop of the conductor’s baton/lifting of the curtain” piece, while many are leaving the hall and only some of the audience is staying around to pay attention.

That is NOT what this sector is all about.  Don’t get me wrong; I love the fact that folks are finally seeing the light and recognizing the hard and good work the nonprofit sector does.  But all of this hoopla and rejoicing because baby boomers  are turning to the nonprofit and public sectors for their encore careers leaves me a bit annoyed.  Where is the hoopla, rejoicing, celebration for all of the people who have spent their first and entire careers in the nonprofit and public sectors?  Where are the kudos for and people profiles on those who sacrificed the big bucks for their entire careers to improve society?  Oh, not there!

But the headlines abound on folks finding encore careers in the nonprofit and public sectors.  Apparently, “feel good” and “doing good” are part of what makes an encore career an encore career.  Encore.org—a truly great website for anyone looking for that encore career or looking to hire someone seeking an encore career—describes an encore career as combining  “personal fulfillment, social impact and continued income, enabling people to put their passion to work for the greater good.”  The banner on the website says “[en]core careers combine purpose, passion and a paycheck.”  Elsewhere on the website, it talks of “purpose-filled careers in the second half of life.”  According to encore.org, the top five places to find an encore career are education (a nonprofit), government, health care (frequently, but not always a nonprofit), environment (again, frequently, but not always a nonprofit) and the nonprofit sector overall.  Yet how many of us combined purpose, passion and a paycheck in the first half of our lives? Kudos, please?

According to the 2008 MetLife Foundation/Civic Ventures Encore Career Survey (Civic Ventures publishes encore.org and, among many other interesting things, offers the really neat Purpose Prize), over half of the 80 million baby boomers are currently in or looking to be in an encore career as described above.  What’s hot?  Top of the list is advocacy on behalf of a cause in which the boomers believe;  almost another third want to work with children and youth, followed closely by   preserving the environment and teaching.  Community safety, fighting poverty, religion, the elderly and health care round out the list of desired mission-based work.

With 76 million people making up the baby boomer generation, it is no wonder that a cottage industry of supports for encore careerists and has sprung up, such as encore.org .  In 2008, IBM partnered with Bridgestar to provide its employees with a new option to its midlife career transition offerings:  transitioning to nonprofits.  The Encore Career Institute recently announced that it had raised $15M from venture capital firms to provide on-line education (through UCLA) to baby boomers to equip them for their encore careers, regardless of where those careers will be.

The American Association of Community Colleges has the Plus 50 Initiative which is designed to change the way community colleges around the country respond to the learning and re-tooling needs of the plus 50 generations.

This is all truly wonderful, and as a baby boomer, I am delighted to know of all of the supports that will help me in my next career.   But I am still not happy.  For what really worries me about the encore employees is whether they will take jobs from the lifers.  From the first Bridgespan study that revealed the need for 640,000 executive directors over the next decade, people have been looking to the encore (though it wasn’t called that then) careerist to fill the void.  Thinking is they’d have “better” (meaning business) skills; they’d know how to run a business.  And knowing how to run a business is absolutely a crucial responsibility of a nonprofit executive director; but “getting” and living the mission are equally important.  You can teach people the skills needed to run a business; you cannot teach passion for a mission.

We are not the leftover sector—the part that comes when everyone has enjoyed the real show, the part that you can take or leave.  And the employees of the sector who have dedicated their careers—dedicated their lives—to work in the sector that improves the quality of life for all deserve just as much, if not more, attention than those who are doing it as the sign off to their careers.

I have been saying it for years:  don’t throw them into the deep end without first teaching them to swim.  It is true of both children (that’s a joke) and nonprofit board members.  Don’t ask and pressure them to fundraise until you have taught them how.  Makes perfect senses, but it is amazing how frequently this doesn’t happen.

I don’t know the drowning statistics, but I do now have fundraising statistics.  Cygnus Applied Research conducted a survey of donors that included almost 3,500 current or recently-resigned board members.  Of these past and present board members, 46% came from organizations with professional fundraiser(s) on staff, while the remaining board members’ organizations had no paid fundraising staff.

Sadly, when it comes to teaching board members to fundraise, there is little difference between organizations with professional fundraising staff and those without.   In both groups, more than half of the organizations provided little fundraising guidance.  (You might forgive the organization lacking in fundraising staff for this failure, due perhaps to a lack of personnel or inside experience, but what is the excuse for a staffed organization?)

Why is something that seems absolutely like a no brainer apparently so hard for so many organizations to understand?  You can’t ask people to do what is for so many one of the most uncomfortable things imaginable without providing them any training, insights, guidance, the basic do’s and don’ts.  The state doesn’t tell children turning 16 (and increasingly 18),  “Okay, get behind the wheel of a car and drive!”  We don’t hire new employees and say, “Okay, go operate this unfamiliar piece of equipment,” and then walk away and leave them on their own.  Why, then, would we do that with board members and their job as fundraisers?

Perhaps the most surprising finding is how few organizations in either category require board members to make a personal gift to the organization:  only 52% of organizations with staff and a paltry 27% of those without staff.  Depositing a check does not require fundraising staff, so what is the deal here?

Over the last 10 years, as more and more funders have been asking, “What portion of your board gives?” I cannot help but wonder under what rocks the fundraising staff and executive directors (as they tend to know what is the “right” or best practice) of the remaining 48% and 73%, respectively, have been hiding?  Without the expectation of a personal gift, it is no wonder that only 47% of organizations with fundraising staff and 29% of those without require board members actually to participate in fundraising.  Yet the fact that only 55% of the staffed organizations and 42% of the unstaffed organizations require board members to “attend special functions such as fund-raising or donor-recognition events” defies rational thinking.

Clearly “require” doesn’t mean require, but merely “suggest” or “we hope you will.”  And the lack of support offered by these “requiring” organizations underlies that statement.  Almost 60% of the board members surveyed said there was no orientation for new board members.  How, then, is a new board member supposed to learn about the organization, its mission, its programs?  How, then, is a new board member supposed to learn about the general responsibilities of being a board member and the particular ways they translate to that particular organization?  When, as we far too often see, an organization assumes board members know what the job of board member entails, they get board members either doing nothing or doing the wrong thing:  teach nothing, you get nothing in return.  Not surprising, 94% of the organizations in both categories had no budget for professional development for board members!  No money, no training.

I’d like this to be a call to arms and not a “misery loves company” refrain:  “See, we are just like the majority of our peers!”  In this economy, and going forward, individual giving must play a key part in an organization’s diversified revenue strategy.  In all organizations, regardless of the existence or not of a staffed development function, board members must play a significant role in securing those individual dollars.  Something so vital to the sustainability of an organization should not rest on crossed fingers and wishful thinking; rather, it should be built upon a comprehensive and on-going program of education and support.

How do you say this without coming off like a spoil sport?   I really am not in love with all of these “jump on the bandwagon” campaigns and new websites that let you buy whatever you want -from your routine shopping at Sam’s Club to your jewelry and shoes to your home redecorations at special online sites–while giving some percentage of the purchase price to charity.

On the surface, this sounds great.  How could I possibly be against that when I call myself a champion of the nonprofit sector?  I truly must be the biggest, baddest, meanest curmudgeon ever if I am suggesting that all dollars are not equal, that dollars are dollars and we shouldn’t question how we get those dollars—provided it is through a legal process.

And these processes, as far as I am aware, are 100% legal.  That’s not the issue.   Here is my issue:  the buyer doesn’t get to pick the charity; the sponsor–the store, the website, etc.–has, more often than not, picked it for you.  Clearly, I am not talking about the websites and Facebook pages where a person can designate a charity of his/her choice.  No, this is the lazy person’s way to give to charity, the person who isn’t first and foremost driven by giving back and helping, but who does it as an afterthought, a serendipitous benefit of shopping.  And these are the sponsors who want the mileage for being a “good civic partner” and “caring about our community.”  Better something than nothing, I should be saying, right?

Sorry, I can’t go there.  For one, I hate it when the choice of charities is taken out of my hands.  When I look at the charities selected by these “shop and give” programs, most are those with the loudest reputations, the biggest names.  But that doesn’t necessarily correspond with the best run nonprofits, the ones doing the most important work in the community, the ones having the greatest impact on the quality of people’s lives, the ones using their donated dollars most wisely – and perhaps the ones with the greatest needs.

All of that bothers me.  I hope that some of the company sponsors of these programs would be upset if they knew that some of the charities they are highlighting, endorsing and supporting aren’t abiding by best practices — both best nonprofit and best business practices.  But my bet is most of them haven’t taken the time to really investigate the “give worthiness” of the charities they are supporting.

They are just happy to be linked with the name, the brand, the aura, the perceived goodness to the community of these nonprofits.  How can you not like the American Red Cross?  I think it would be perceived as un-American.  But since going through eight or nine CEOS, both interims and permanent , in fewer years, added to its scandaasl post-9-11 and post-Katrina, and I’m not giving them a penny, whether I buy something to do so or not.

And I know that the average American goes apoplectic when it comes to how s/he thinks nonprofits manage its money.  Nevertheless, they buy away and donate those dollars without giving a thought to how or how well those charitable dollars will be used.  Yet, I watch time after time as young people stand in the middle of six lanes of traffic collecting money in cans for this charity and that, and cars stop, throw in coins and bills.  Yet there are even more cars that never stop, some of whose occupants, no doubt, are wondering where that money really goes, how much the charity will use for its mission work.   Yet attach giving to shopping, and it giving becomes a whole other game.

I also can’t help but wonder how seriously the sponsors’ commitment to doing good, giving back, the value of the nonprofit sector, etc., is?  Are they doing this because they, too, have read the research that shows, year after year, people prefer to buy products that are associated with a nonprofit  (hence the pink ribbons on everything from bras to canned goods), to work at companies that support good work in their communities?

I am increasingly fearful of our “take no responsibility” society.  Don’t be responsible for buying a house larger than you can afford; just live in it until it is taken away.  Don’t be responsible for spending beyond your means;  just live that life until you have to declare bankruptcy.  Don’t be responsible for taking care of your children if doing so interferes with your life style; do it until the child gets taken away from you, or worse, mysteriously dies.  Don’t do your own homework and identify what is important to you, what organization supports your values, protects your money/donation as you would your own, is really changing lives.

For many, it makes them feel good simply to be able to say, “I give to charity.”  It doesn’t matter to whom or for what, but simply that they gave and they did “good”.   I just keep thinking it would feel even better if the person knew that his/her donation—whether given directly or indirectly—was  going to the most important work and causes in his/her community.  But me, I like my charity pure:  i want to make and receive donations for all of the “right” reasons?   Do you?

Funny what we will and won’t do, to what we can and can’t adjust.  A voracious reader, I love my e-books.  I can take as many books as I want wherever I go to fit my mood, whatever it is, and I don’t need to schlep an extra suitcase.  I will not, however, read a newspaper on line.  Couldn’t figure out why, what was stopping me, until recently.

It was the May 5 issue of The Chronicle of Philanthropy that helped me to understand why.  Online, I am stuck reading one story at a time.  But with the print version, I can jump from story to story on the front page and see what piques my curiosity.  All in one glance; no scrolling, not going forward or backwards, all right there in front of my eyes.  And I love jumping from story to story because often the juxtaposition of stories is more interesting than any one story in and of itself.

Take the issue of The Chronicle, noted above.  Sub-headline on the lead story, top of the front page:  “60% of big charities say Internet fund raising is stronger so far in 2011 than a year ago, ….”  Jump down right below and the headline reads, “Most Donors Intend to Give More in 2011, ….”  Last headline is “Ore. Crafts Novel Way to Crack Down on Overhead Costs.”  And sandwiched in between all the stories (and a picture of a bicyclist hoisting his bike standing on the beach) is a box graph title “Why Donors Stop Giving.”  [Reasons?  Changed priorities 41%), asked too many times to give (32%) and own financial position changed (30%).]

Glancing at all of these headlines, I got a very good sense of what I would find in the article—with one exception—and what is top of the mind of nonprofits these days.   The story that wasn’t revealed by its headline, however, was the most interesting.

Just how was the state of Oregon cracking down on it the overhead costs of nonprofits? The solution was amazing to me.  In fact, I didn’t believe I had gotten it right after the first reading.  So, I read it again, and again, and yet again—several more times.  The state Senate has approved a bill that would ban charities from receiving gifts that are eligible for a state tax deduction if those charities spend less than 30% of their expenses on their programs and services.  Did you get that?  Did you have to read that statement multiple times in order to really believe it was saying what it said?  Was Oregon’s Senate really saying that if you spend $.31, $.40 or $.50 of every dollar on programs and the rest on what I can only assume they would label “overhead” costs you are deserving of receiving gifts from donors who, in return, may claim a state tax deduction?  Excuse me?

I’d love to meet the donor who would be thrilled to know that $.70 of every dollar s/he gave to a nonprofit was going to pay the electric bill, or the copier or for new office equipment.  I don’t recall getting any appeal letters recently with pictures of a hot water heater or blackboard or phone bill.  I get that you can’t deliver programs and services without the necessary infrastructure supports in place, and I’m willing to fund them as well as the programs and services.    And  I know that it is an ongoing struggle to try to educate donors to this dual funding need—programs and overhead.  But I would never give my money—tax deductions or no tax deductions—to an organization that a)needs to spend that much of its funds on overhead and b)thinks it is okay to do so.  And I would never vote for a legislature who would support such a notion.   Perhaps Oregonians should take a look at the budgets of their State Senators.

I can only imagine the front page headlines a year from now if other states’ legislatures take their lead from the Oregon Senate and actually pass legislation suggesting that it is a “nonpunishable” offense for nonprofits to spend $.71 of every dollar raised on overhead and $.29 on programs and services:    “Why donors stopped giving?  Irresponsible nonprofits. “New Study Find Most Donors Intend to Give Way Less in 2012.”  “Bottom drops out of internet giving as donors discover the true costs of nonprofits doing business.”

I usually don’t play favorites within the nonprofit sector.  I advocate on behalf of the entire sector, not one part.  But everyone doesn’t’ play the same way

Arts and culture groups:  you are not the only part of the nonprofit sector that enriches our communities!  If I read one more article, op-ed piece, blog post or tweet that touts the singular benefits that arts and culture organizations bring to a community, I am going to scream.  Why do you push the rest of the sector out of the limelight and grab it all for yourself?

When an arts and culture organization hits the headlines because someone within the organization embezzled from the organization, all nonprofits are taken down a notch.  When a “world class” arts and culture organization makes news because it is filing for bankruptcy, the question mark of fiscally responsibility hovers every nonprofit, regardless of its mission and model (world class, statewide, community-based, etc.)  You are good, don’t get me wrong; but so is the rest of the sector.  I regularly reap the benefits of your great work; but I do as well from contributions from the rest of the sector.

Of the almost 1 million public charities registered with the IRS (as of June 2011, according to the National Center for Charitable Statistics), less than 10% are arts and culture organizations.  Surely, arts and culture organizations don’t mean to suggest that the remaining 90+% add nothing to our communities?  Let’s begin with what we can easily measure.   Whereas the 90+% of the sector reported a total of $1,418,422,523,927 in annual revenue, the arts and culture subsection’s share was a mere 2% ($28,763,467,805).  Not shabby, but not the bulk of the economic impact, either.  Health care nonprofits (physical health, not mental) contributed 56% to that total, education nonprofits almost 17% and human service organizations just over 8%.

Every time there is a financial crisis in this country, regardless of the magnitude, funders reassess their priorities and retarget their dollars to put them where they can do the “most good.”  One of the perpetual tragedies of such reassessments is that the funding of arts and culture always gets moved to the “not a necessity” column, while the more tangible components of Maslow’s hierarchy of need—food, clothing, shelter, security–move to the “necessity” column.  And yet, arts and culture are as vital a part of our survival and successful navigation of tough times as the food we eat, the shelter we seek and the job we secure and maintain.  It is not an either or but a both and; we need it all for our lives to be truly enriched.

The success of the nonprofit sector rests on the successful synergy of its parts, not a scale of value and importance.   Folks are reluctant to go to arts and culture organizations in neighborhoods with too many vacant buildings and vacant lots.  And if your head is hanging low with worry about your next meal or how to get medical treatment for your child, you will not notice the sculpture, mural or street performance.  People prefer going into communities that have been tended to by community development corporations and neighborhood gardens.  A night at the theatre or a stroll through a gallery is far less enjoyable when shared with those who are hacking and sneezing away or expressing the demons that live within them.   The neighborhood clinic and mental health center take care of that.  While the tour of the historic house and garden becomes much more enjoyable by those visitors who can read the signage and learn about the preserved specimens and original furniture because they have benefited from a literacy and/or GED program.  A walking tour of public art is probably less pleasant when participants are trying to avoid panhandlers and those just hanging on the corner.  Fortunately, the rich subsection referred to with the catch phrase of social service, encompassing addiction services to homelessness services, jobs training to financial literacy training support those working to get (back) on their feet.

Each subsection of the nonprofit sector makes its contributions, has its impact felt and enjoyed because of the work of the rest of the subsections that make up the rich and wonderful nonprofit sector.   None is better or worse, greater or lesser societal benefit.  One works because they all work. We are truly all in this together; we sink, we swim, we succeed together.

Recently, the IRS published the list of the 279,595 nonprofits which had their nonprofit status revoked for failure to file a Form 990 for at least three consecutive years, a requirement put forth in the Pension Reform Act of 2006. Taken in the larger scheme of things, 280,000 out of a total of approximately 1.6 million nonprofits is about 18%.   Since that release, newspaper headlines around the country have been reporting the local numbers, which vary depending upon whether reporting on a town, county or state:  almost 900 in South Dakota and nearly 14,000 in Florida; almost 200 combined in Horry and Georgetown Counties, South Carolina and 26 in Coshocton County, Ohio; the City of Dana Point, California, lost 24, while Philadelphia lost 1,968.

Should we mourn or rejoice?  Neither, really.  On the one hand, there are too many nonprofits in this country, so separating the wheat from the chaff is much needed.  With too many there is unnecessary duplicatation of services, competition for increasingly limited resources, a wasting of those board members that really want to do board work, and much more.  Unfortunately, however, almost half (134,615) of these “revoked” nonprofits hadn’t been on the IRS’ radar screen at all or for some long period of time.   So, we didn’t do much winnowing there.

On the other hand, with the remaining 144,980 of which the IRS was aware, perhaps it has cleaned up the sector a little, getting rid of those nonprofits that played fast and loose with the rules and regulations, or those that were ignorant, or those that were just too busy.  No matter what their excuse, they are gone—at least temporarily.  (The IRS has already started working with those organizations seeking reinstatement of their tax-exempt status.  Thus, this move may have turned into an annoyance, but not much more.  Unless this time round, the IRS will do a better job of keeping tabs and really enforcing what it, or the Pension Reform Act, says.)

So, what of those 145,000 of which the IRS was aware but are now no longer classified as tax-exempt?  Who are they?  According to Guidestar’s research, revenue for the largest 100 organizations on the revocation list had revenues ranging from $4-400 million. The largest three each reported income in excess of $2 million, the last time they reported (2004 or 2006); the top 50 each reported revenue in excess of $10 million.  These are not the small, grassroots, mom and pop nonprofits which might claim ignorance, or lack of resources or being too busy.  These are organizations that had the staff, access to knowledge and experts, and had senior management and boards that should have known better.   There are no excuses here.  There were, however, plenty of organizations that might be able to use the excuse of ignorance or lack of resources:  more than 75% of the now “de-frocked” nonprofits had annual revenues under $25,000.

And yet I wonder what were the folks running these organizations, regardless of their size, thinking?  More than half (57%) of these revoked organizations were 501(c)(3) public charities, meaning donations to these organizations were only tax deductible for their donors for as long as the nonprofit remained in good standing.  (Oops!  Blew that!)  Gaining tax-exempt status is a quid pro quo arrangement:  the government does something for you, you do something for it.  It may just be the one really clear thing in the IRS guidelines:  file the Form 990. How do you miss that?

But the question that really nags at me is “What good did this do the sector?”  Is the nonprofit sector better off as a result?  Are the stakeholders served by the sector better off as a result?  Or was this really just an act of “because we can” and consequence was not a matter of concern.  (Certainly the fact that the IRS is now working with nonprofits to get them reinstated suggests this may have been an exercise in power.)  Perhaps it was simply to allow us all to hear the lion roar in hopes that next time we all will jump to it.

Broadway revivals like “How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying,” although originating in a different era, often have a message that remains timely decades later.  Good example, the song,  “A Secretary is Not a Toy.”  But with all due respect to the writer/composer, Frank Loesser, the version I am singing today plays a little with the opening lines: ”  My version goes like this:  People, people, a nonprofit is not a toy, no my board, not a toy.”

To be honest, I am really more than tired of hearing stories of board members, collectively or individually, shanghaiing a nonprofit as their own personal toy to do with as they want.   Here, I am thinking of the board president who is recently retired from her career and who now decides to run the nonprofit to fit her personal needs—and the rest of the board members sit back and watch this and do nothing about it.  This is the board president who is into everything—much of which is not her purview.

There is no reason for the board president to be on every committee.  And there is ABSOLUTELY no reason for the board president to chair anything more than the board itself and the executive committee.  In a culture where that is allowed to happen (and I mean allowed by the other board members), it should come as no surprise when there are no takers for becoming the next board president.  The current one has made the job of president look like an enormity that no one wants.  Now, the way this scenario ends, is that the totalitarian board president “magnanimously” agrees to serve another term.  Poof, you have despot. This situation occurs only with the collusion of the rest of the board:  they allow this situation to develop and to be sustained.  And it is the rest of the board that must assert its voice.

A board president should have no more power than any other board member; s/he just has a lot more responsibility.  That responsibility, however, does not include running everything by him/herself and becoming a one person band; it does not mean closing out the executive director or the other board members; it does not mean treating the nonprofit as his/her pet project.  It isn’t his; it isn’t a project.  It is a mission-based business that must deliver on its mission promises.  And its takes a full board and an executive director working in partnership to make that happen.

While one set of board members allows the president to dress the doll up as he sees fit, changing the clothes whenever, dying the hair, breaking a leg, etc., another set allows the board president to ignore the toy altogether.  The other board members don’t force him to trade the truck for a basketball, and move on from playing with trucks to playing b-ball.  Rather, they allow him to leave the truck in the middle of the floor to simply walk around, while every so often picking it up and thinking, “Ah, yes, you,” only to put it down for another month or months.  This is the board president who maybe didn’t really want to be president, but the board was desperate.  Or the board president who is using the office to build his resume, impress a highly sought client or potential boss, but doesn’t really want to do the job.  Any reason but the right ones.  This president is the exact opposite of the despot; this president isn’t really interested in ruling, to the point that he simply doesn’t.

This is the president who avoids the controversies and tensions in the organization, fails to bring the tough discussions to the board, keeps blinders on to the stress fractures in the board and the organization.   This is the board president content with the status quo and praying that nothing really, truly erupts on his watch.  It isn’t that he wishes the organization harm; he just wants to do no work.  And once again, the other board members, who allow this situation to continue, are just as responsible for the harm that results.

Both kinds of board presidents and the boards that allow them to exist fail to understand the role of the board and its importance to the health and well-being of a nonprofit and, therefore, the health and well-being of the community.  These are the boards that see nonprofits as “a little plaything” instead of the important and vital component of vibrant communities that they are and that need sustained attention and care.

“What is REAL?” asked the Rabbit one day, …. “Does it mean having things that buzz inside you and a stick-out handle?”
“Real isn’t how you are made,” said the Skin Horse. “It’s a thing that happens to you.
When a child loves you for a long, long time, not just to play with, but REALLY loves you, then you become Real.” (from The Velveteen Rabbit)

It seem I have more to say about social media  and if nonprofits are using it smartly and wisely. So, here is some research fodder for your social media strategy.

Item one:  the human touch still matters! At least according to research by Hyojung Park, a doctoral student in journalism at the University of Missouri. Park showed study participants mock-ups of the “social media websites” of real for-profit and nonprofit organizations.  Some sites just presented the organization—no names, no pictures, just the organization as a whole, while others had pictures and messages directly from the organizations’ PR/marketing personnel.  The latter are the ones defined as having a “human voice.”

What did Park find?  The personal, friendlier sites with the “human voice” get much higher marks than those without.   She says, “We have evidence that perceived conversational human voice may promote trust, satisfaction, and commitment in relationships between an organization and the public, which in turn results in favorable behavioral intentions toward an organization.” Which in the nonprofit sector translates into, among other things, money.

Item two:  ethnicity or race (not really clear what these researchers thought they were studying) matters.  Georgetown University’s Center for Social Impact Communication and Ogilvy Public Relations titled their research report “Social Media Plays Greater Role In Cause Engagement For African Americans and Hispanics.”

African Americans and Hispanics are significantly more likely to support a cause online (than offline) than are whites.  They are more likely than whites to believe that they can spread the word of the cause through social media, and more likely to see social media as an added source of useful information.  Most interestingly of all, however, is the finding that African Americans and Hispanics say that supporting causes makes them feel part of their communities.  Is that a different way of saying they feel like they are making a difference, one of the key mantras of fundraising– never deny anyone the opportunity to be part of the solution?

Interesting findings, but they beg some questions.  What about Asians? Native Americans? other key groups that make up the rich diversity of America’s population? And what happens when we disaggregate the multiplicity that makes up African American, Hispanic, Caucasian?

Do the results change among subsectors of those anything but heterogeneous groups?  Unanswered questions remain, but a clear lesson to relearn or reinforce:  one size does not fit all.  Know thy audience!  Old ways, new ways, it doesn’t matter.  We have to understand the tools we use and how they will be received by those on whom we wish to have an impact.

Sometimes the personal touch, the human voice, involves a kick-in-the-pants approach.  When appropriate, The Nonprofit Center is the one doling out the tough love to nonprofits or practitioners that deserve a trip to the proverbial woodshed.  That sometimes indelicate role is part of the impact The Nonprofit Center makes, in its effort to strengthen the sector.

Our call to action: But we’re not about getting in trouble by exposing their tales of woe inappropriately.  But we also know that there are valuable lessons to be gained through the stories of others, not to mention the great cathartic feeling that comes with “venting”.

So, instead of airing your stories of board member follies or donor demands via a blog or a tweet that could be traced back to you, take advantage of the “Nonprofit Confessional” we’re offering.

Tell me your story, educate, pontificate; the prouds, the sorries, the uglies.  We will read them all and even post—COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY ANONYMOUSLY—these cautionary tales.

You’ll get it out of your system, your colleagues will learn a thing or two and the message will be sent that you aren’t alone.

Send your confessions to laura.otten@yahoo.com

This past week, I had the great pleasure to attend my niece’s graduation from one of the top business schools in the country.   This school annually awards one-year fellowships to eight deserving graduates which allow them to spend a year applying their new-found knowledge in one of eight nonprofits.  Some, my niece tells me, as she is one of this year’s class of eight, even become employees of the nonprofit after the fellowships conclude.  That’s the good news.

The bad news came at a reception that my niece and her close circle of friends held for their families.  A conversation with the mother of one of the hostesses had me cringing, despite having heard what she had to say too many times before (including from my niece’s mouth after her summer experiences at various nonprofits).  This woman’s daughter was taking her business school education and going to work (not a fellowship) for a national nonprofit, and the daughter was seriously uneasy with the prospect.  She loved the mission of this organization, but she had had a bad experience with a summer job at a nonprofit that left her believing that nonprofits are inept and are not– no cannot be– run like an efficient for-profit.  And this made her exceptionally anxious about her new place of employment.

As I said, I’ve heard this lament again and again.  And, depending upon my mood, I chuckle and say, “That’s what keeps The Nonprofit Center in business!”  Truly, I only say that internally.  Externally, I explain how that is changing, that nonprofits increasingly understand that they need to run like a business, pay attention to the bottom line, have metrics and sound business models, require solid performances of employees, etc., etc., etc.  I say that people for too long have looked at nonprofits as they do that dilettante relative:  interesting, good for an amusing story, but not to be taken seriously.  And quite honestly, I’m really, really tired of this.

But who is to blame for this?  I’ll lay it at the feet of the paid and volunteer heads of the organization:  the executive director and the board.  I see it again and again, and have written about it probably too often:  the executive director who spends so much time working in the organization, as I put it once before on these pages, and neglects working on the organization.

As a result, inefficiencies abound.  Employees who underperform remain on payroll for years; funding is not diversified; programs remain in place regardless of whether they fulfill mission promises, bring in sufficient revenue, meet the goals of the program; jobs are “fluid” because there are no job descriptions; the strategic plan, if it exists, is ignored; decision making, because it must be inclusive, is painfully slow.  And the list could go on.  It may “feel” or initially look like a nice place to work, but the reality is quite the opposite.  It is a disorganized, chaotic, underperforming, excuse-driven organization.  And, quite frankly, who would want to work there?

The board, which is supposed to be there to prevent the above from happening, isn’t doing its job.  It should be providing oversight of the finances, executive director and mission fulfillment; it should be laying the direction through policy setting and strategic planning; and it should be ensuring sufficient resources to sustain the mission now and into the future.  Instead, we have bright board members—perhaps educated at some of the most prestigious business schools in the country—going dumb or not bothering to pay attention when it comes to advising the dilatant relative.  How about the board that has no clue what its operating budget is nor any idea of whether it is in the red or the black?  (Want to take a guess?)

Or the board that hasn’t had a financial report in a year because the staff hasn’t been able to get the new software to work?   How about the one where the board that has been unhappy with the executive director for three or five or more years, but has never gotten around to doing a performance evaluation or making any corrective attempts and is only now coming around to doing something because the organization is tanking?

Or the board that has been comfortable, year after year, to rely solely on government grants, stridently refusing suggestions to diversify and ignoring the examples around it of such solo-funded organizations going down?  This all might be funny if it weren’t for the fact that all of these scenarios, and the ones I don’t have room to tell here, are real; didn’t make one of them up.  Promise.

Do people run their for-profit businesses like this?  Don’t think so.  I’ve yet to meet a CEO who lets an underperforming employee remain on the payroll (unless there were “special” circumstances, such as blood lines, sex, blackmail, etc.) or continue to push a product that was no longer delivering what the market could bear?  Would for-profit board members be willing to let a whole year go by with an underperforming CEO at the helm or not knowing the financial health of the company?  Can’t imagine it!  And yet, time and time again, we see what would never be practiced in the for-profit world pass as acceptable in the nonprofit world.  And it comes with serious consequences.

One serious consequence is the on-going devaluation of the nonprofit sector in comparison to the for-profit sector.  The latter, this view holds, is more important than the former.  Truth is, however, that both are equally important to the quality of everyone’s life.  The sooner we realize that and start taking nonprofits and their missions as seriously as we do companies and their products, the better our society will become.

Another serious consequence is that we are chasing away the very ones who can right the sector.   We all want the best and the brightest working for us—for-profits and nonprofits alike.  The best and the brightest don’t just come out of the country’s top business schools; they come from all walks of life and backgrounds.  It is more than time for every nonprofit to take a deep, hard and honest look at itself and see whether and how it is its our own worst enemy—chasing away the chance for a bright future.

I remember the first time the call went out that pieces of some space exploration  equipment were going to be falling from the sky, landing we knew not where.  There were projections which—I truly thought then and now—were more hopes and spin put out there with the intent to diffuse anxiety about the “sky falling in”—that it would land in the desert or the ocean.  But the reality was, the “experts” had no clue.  And I so remember at the time ranting at the “experts” for getting so carried away by the thrill of something new that they failed a) to think through carefully and completely about the implications of this invention for the rest of society and what it was they were unleashing  and b) to design any procedures surrounding this new thing.

History does love to repeat itself, though this time it is social media.  Most, if not all, of us have heard the stories of athletes self-immolating by putting something quick and not really thought through out on Twitter. Amazing how much damage 140 characters can do!  Just ask Reggie Bush, Rashard Mendenhall, Matt Hasselbeck , and Antonio Cromartie.  And I know and know of too many twenty-somethings who had a great time with their Facebook pages while in high school and college and subsequently lost job opportunities because potential employers didn’t like what they found on those pages.

The nonprofit sector is not immune!  We have jumped on the social media bandwagon almost as quickly as everyone else.  Just this past weekend, at an event I attended, the free workshop on social media drew a packed room, while my workshop on the board and its roles and responsibilities maybe had less than twenty.  As I stood at the door and listened to the last half-hour, I heard only how to do it and nothing on how to protect yourself and your organization.  Had folks come to my session on a board’s roles and responsibilities, they would have learned that the board should have created some policies guiding everyone on what is and isn’t allowed on company time, and not.

Last year, the story made the rounds of the women in St. Louis who worked for a nonprofit by day and was a sex blogger by night.  She was discovered because her boss was told by her superiors to google her and other employees.  The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has just determined that Hispanics United of Buffalo acted illegally when it fired five employees who took their office complaints onto Facebook.  Seems the NLRB believes that talking about your employer, work conditions, fellow employees, etc., on Facebook is akin to talking about all of that standing around “the water cooler,” and you can’t be fired for that.

And then there is the story of Reel Grrls, a Seattle, Washington nonprofit that uses media production to empower young women.  Comcast, a  funder for the last three years of Reel Grrls’ summer camp, withdrew its $18,000 funding when it learned of a Reel Grrls’ staff member tweet criticizing Comcast for hiring as a lobbyist a member of the Federal Communications Commission that approved Comcast’s purchase of NBC.  (The FCC member, obviously, is stepping down to accept the position at Comcast.)  Comcast has since reinstated the grant, but Reel Grrls has refused it, preferring not to be associated with an organization that they perceive as blocking freedom of speech.  You go, Grrls!

But that is not the point of this blog.  The point of this blog is to ask boards of directors:  what guidance have you given your organization—you, the staff, volunteers—for the use of this “new” invention?  No doubt your organizations are on Facebook and Twitter, and maybe Linked-In and other similar sites.  (And I am sure board members, employees, volunteers, some clients, are as well.)  Social media is the rage among for-profits and nonprofits alike.  But have you given any guidance as to what is okay and not okay in using social media  as it relates to the organization, employees, colleagues, collaborators, competitors, funders—you get the picture—or not?

What are the standards and expectations that surround their use of these sites as it pertains to their personal positions and interests and the organization’s use of those sites to check up on them? While at work?  While on their own time? And what are the policies surrounding monitoring employees and volunteers?  Does this just happen at work? Or, will big brother be watching what is done on their own time, under their own name or a pseudonym?

I am not a lawyer, so I cannot say what is within your legal rights.  What I can say is that you need to have a philosophical discussion about what your organization—in light of its mission and core values—will and will not tolerate, and then you need to run it past your attorney to make sure it is a legal position.  Do you want to fire someone who is an exemplary employee while at work because s/he has a salacious blog on his/her own time? or has friended a group that you find questionable?  Do you want to be the organization that scans people’s Facebook (or wherever) pages before hiring them (or accepting them onto the board) to see if they got drunk in college, posed in an outrageous costume or helped senior citizens with their groceries?  Or do you want to be the organization that says do whatever or give no guidelines.

We have clearly introduced into society an innovation before having thought through all of the implications and ramifications.  The sky is not falling in, but things may be a bit out of control.  By allowing them to remain so, boards risk creating problems—and lawsuits—that are within their purview to prevent.  It isn’t too late to close the barn door, but you better act quickly.