Brenda's Thoughts

Making an Impact With a Small Donation

2010-12-19T07:55:00.000-08:00

When I talk to people about making an impact with their donations, many people think that it requires a large donation. To make an impact today, you do not need to spend a lot of money. You may choose to make an impact with a gift as low as $25. Granted there are various stages of making meaningful impacts, but let me suggest two steps you can do with your smaller donation that will make you feel comfortable that what you are giving is making an impact.

Step one: Ask questions about how much money is going directly to help clients and not to administrative or fundraising costs. With that simple bit of research, you can give to the charity that gives the most to their recipients. With more money going to the recipients, more people may benefit.

Step Two: Ask the charity for their outcomes. Look at their mission and look for a purpose. Then ask how successful the charity is at meeting that purpose. How many of their clients are succeeding? With that additional research, you are checking on the quality of the programming at your chosen charity, not just the efficiency.

If you find a charity that meets the above requirements, then you are making a significant difference. Perhaps your donation will not change the lives of many people, but it will make the charity more accountable for providing their results to you and to other like-minded donors. The more donors that ask questions and make objective decisions, the greater the potential for significant impact.

Something to think about...

Meaningful giving

2010-12-11T08:09:00.000-08:00

We hear the word "meaningful" used quite frequently, especially now that we are in the holiday season. What does meaningful mean? More importantly, what does it mean to you, the donor or to you the charity or to you the end recipient? Can one give meaningfully and also make a meaningful difference to the end client and to the charity? You bet! However, the donor has to become more aware of the charity and the charity's success with its clients.

Imagine if a donor wanted to see those with alchohol addictions getting more help so they gave money to an addiction rehabiliation site. They wrote the cheque and felt satisfied that people were being helped, but what if you were to know that your money could help 10% more people at a different agency or if you knew that there was another addiction agency that had a greater client success rate. Would you be upset? Would you want to change your donation? If you have answered positively to those questions, then perhaps you are someone that is looking to make a more meaningful gift.

Victor Frankl, author of the famous and powerful book, "Man's Search For Meaning" believes that humans are motivated by meaning, not strictly by pleasure or power. He labelled ultimate meaning as self-transcending. To do that, one must give back to the community, but give back in a way that is not selfish, but that truly provides help to others. There is an example, where a child, who had lost his arms at a very young age, was trying to put on his coat. His mother watched. Another mother asked why she was not helping her son, and the mother responded that she was. The son, in later years, thanked his mother for teaching him how to be indepedent. This is an example of Frankl's self-transcendence.

If one wants to make a meaningful gift that is meaningful to all parties, one must observe and research how one's gift will do that. However, once you have done your work and you have given with knowledge, you will feel a much greater sense of meaning. Your gift will be lasting and purposeful to many people.

Something to think about...

Giving to "branded" non-profits

2010-12-04T07:08:00.000-08:00

How many of you give to charities or non-profits because you have heard of them? Why? Do you feel that a charity that has been around for a while is a better charity to support? Do you think that there must be greater accountability in a charity that you know?

If you decide to give money to a different charity this year, do you decide to give to one just because you have heard of it over the years and have seen photos and heard anecdotal stories of people who have been helped at that place? If you do, then chances are you are making charitable decisions based upon branding, not actual client results. You are supporting a long-time brand just because it has been an "institution" within your community. The charity may be very good and doing exactly what they say they are doing, and they are as efficient as one could hope, but do you know that?

Donors still tend to give to those organizations that have been around for a while, which I understand, but this sector needs innovation as well. If donors don't ask for results, then agencies don't feel they have to run their agencies for greater client success. They just make sure they are financially solvent each year because that has typically been the measure of success.

However, many donors complain to me that their favourite charities keep sending them more requests per year and keep asking for an increase from the previous year. I ask them if they ask for results. Almost all of them do not. They can't be bothered and yet, if they did, they might find that their attitude changes. If they see the results, they might be encouraged to give more. If they don't, then they should change charities, but most will not. Their charitable choices have become institutionalized, and it is hard to make them budge, even through scandals. Great news for those agencies that don't care about accountability, but not so great for those that do.

There is no problem with giving to what you know, but why not ask for more information so that you can feel comfortable that the charity is worth your trust. Many new organizations are not well-known and consequently fight to be recognized. In many cases, they are also more results-oriented and will show you their results in order to build a relationship with you. If they provide results, why not give them a chance? They may be making significant changes within their field of expertise.

My suggestion would be to start asking for results from any charity. Let the charity work a little harder at showing you their efficiency and also their client success.

Something to think about...

Individual Giving

2010-11-28T08:32:00.000-08:00

As we enter into the holiday season, there tends be more appeals from fundraisers and more calls made and literature sent to potential donors. How does an individual decide?

Donors still tend to give because giving makes them feel good, because they receive tax benefits or because a friend has asked them to give to their special cause. All of these reasons are fine, but would you decide upon an investment if there was no accountability for a return? How often would you invest in a company that yearly asks you for more money without showing you any profit or any type of financial return? I think I already know the answer.

If donors do not ask for greater accountability, then we are not rewarding those charities that do supply us with an efficient operation and strive for greater end client results. We lump all the charities into the same pot and yet are they all the same in terms of efficiency and effectiveness?

The greatest motive for giving is to feel good. Donors like to think that their money is helping causes achieve what their mission states. In many cases, you are helping. However, if you asked for their client success rate, you might be surprised by some of the responses of your favourite charities. In some cases, they might not even answer your call for results. Then what would you do? Would you still financially support them? In other cases, they might not even know what results you are really asking for. They therefore supply you with a bunch of statistics that address many areas, but do not answer the bottom line question, which is how many clients were successful at meeting what their mission promises.

When friends ask you to give to their favourite causes, do you ask for any information on the success of that charity or do you give because it is a friend? Yes, I agree this area is very tricky so why not start your own trend of expectations? When you ask others to give to your favourite charity, supply them with a basic fact sheet outlining some efficiency measures and effectiveness measures. Follow up with your friends six months to a year later with some results and see how that makes everyone feel. Change the way social asks are made and hope that others follow suit, but if not, don't be afraid to ask for more information.

Something to think about!

Corporate giving

2010-11-21T04:53:00.000-08:00

Corporate giving can create some tricky situations if you are a public company. Some shareholders feel that this money should go to them, not to charities and it is up to the individual shareholder to give money if he/she chooses, but not the company.

These days, there is what's called strategic philanthropy. Strategic philanthropy can be implemented in various ways, but for corporations it could mean aligning your donations with some of your corporate strategies. For example, let's say you wanted to tap into the Asian market. Then you could find out what issues the Asian market has for that time in that area and see if you can find a charity to help resolve the issue. You fund the charity. The charity develops and implements the project with your name on the information and the Asian market benefits. The hope is that this new consumer thinks of your company when they want to buy a particular product. Of course, this assumes the corporation has done all the right research on the issues, the charity, and the materials/tools that were used. If any one of those areas are performed poorly, then the overall win- win to everyone is heavily compromised.

I have seen corporations donate thousands of dollars to causes without doing any research. The result is that the corporations haven't found the right issue and all the materials aren't used or the corporation may also give to a worthy cause, but so have many others so there is a lot of clutter and too much money in one cause. No one corporation stands out. Although, this is not a marketing expense, there needs to be some mention of the corporation's name in a way that makes the corporation stand out from others. On top of that, charities need to show effectiveness and effciency so that shareholders can see that corporate dollars were accounted for both financially and in client performance.

Corporate giving is no longer about just giving to the community through various charities and then receiving a tax receipt. Corporations need to look at charitable giving as a way to align their giving with their other departments to receive some benefit. If not, then corporations will cut the donations in hard times. It has taken a long time for marketing executives to persuade most businesses not to cut their advertising budgets during hard times. They could only do this because they were able to show a strong business case as to why they should keep advertising. Corporate shareholders must also see this strong case to justify why money should go to charities instead of going to them or back into the operations.
Something to think about...

Donor giving series

2010-11-13T07:23:00.000-08:00

This year I have re-introduced my previous business, Donations Management. Donations Management is established to help corporations, foundations and high-end donors manage their donations to create more meaningful and measurable impacts. GET RESULTS!!

For the next few weeks, I will be blogging about some areas for donors to think about before they make substantial investments. The intent of this series is to get donors and charities to think differently. My overall end goal is to have more end recipients succeed. There is no greater emotional experience, to me, than to see people achieving their goals.

Okay, let's begin. What exactly does impact mean? When we talk about impact, there seems to be a few ways of explaining it. I define impact as focusing on the end result so for the majority of donors that means financial impacts and client impacts . For this blog, we will focus on financial and client impacts.

How well did the charity manage a donor's gift? Did most of the money go towards programming? Financial impacts tend to focus on efficiency measures that try to answer those questions such as % of administrative and or fundraising costs relative to total expenses or to total fundraising dollars raised or programming costs per client. When donors assess the financial statements, they want to know if the charity invested in helping more end recipients succeed or did they help more internal staff get bonuses for their fundraising skills? That sounds cynical, but unfortunately, donors are watching as these fundraising costs are in many cases skyrocketing. Donors want to see more money going to programming. The more money going towards programming, the greater the potential for more clients to succeed. I say potential. This leads me to the next area of impact - client impact.

I think the most powerful area of measurement is that of client impact which can be measured in terms of effectiveness. To me, that is basically checking to see how many of the charity's clients succeeded or how many clients achieved what the charity promised they would achieve. That promise should be clearly defined within the mission. That promise can also be called an outcome depending upon how well you have defined it. I think measuring client impact is the most important area. As I have mentioned in other articles, I believe that the bottom-line for the non-profit sector is not financial solvency, although that is vital, but rather client success. For too long, charities have not had to be accountable for client success. That needs to change if communities want to truly see less poverty, better education, and higher quality health care.

Something to think about...

This blog has moved

2010-04-29T10:19:00.001-07:00

This blog is now located at http://integrated-outcomes.blogspot.com/.
You will be automatically redirected in 30 seconds, or you may click here.

For feed subscribers, please update your feed subscriptions to
http://integrated-outcomes.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default.

sickness and productivity

2009-11-03T15:02:00.000-08:00

I have not been able to blog for a couple of weeks due to a persistent sickness. This illness has lasted almost six weeks - the longest sickness ever. However, because of this sickness, it has made me think of ways to prevent another bout of this magnitude.

I saw a study that showed that green buildings save companies money because people are sick on average 2.8 days fewer than they had been when they worked in regular buildings. Interestingly enough, companies are still not prepared to invest more money in green buildings...yet.

I think, though, that we are entering into a period of pandemics. Between SARS, and now the H1N1 flu virus, we are becoming more aware of how the environment can affect our health. When people begin to be sick for weeks, productivity will show a dramatic decrease - not just a 4% difference as was proven in the above study. When that happens, greeen buildings or any type of product that prevents the spreading of viruses will be of high demand.

The other issue around sickness is whether employees should stay at home. The obvious response is that employees should stay home so that they don't spread the disease to others, but how many employees are self-employed or are paid for hours on the job? Too many. How do we deal with people that are legitimately sick? Moreover, we are due for a pandemic so with any upcoming "pandemics", do employers provide enough sick time for employees to fully recover or will employees have to return to work still sick and still contagious in order to maintain their pay and/or holiday time?

Something to think about ...

what kind of holiday do you like?

2009-10-13T17:29:00.000-07:00

In Canada, we just finished celebrating our Thanksgiving holiday. I have to admit it is my favourite holiday. There is no gift-giving and financial and emotional stress associated with each gift. We come together and do a potluck dinner complete with a stuffed turkey, home made pies and vegetable dishes so there is very little advance work on one person's shoulder. I cherish the time to enjoy family in a very simplistic way.

To me, Chrismas is the opposite. I like the inital thrill of the first snow fall and of hearing Christmas carols, but the holiday is now a holiday season. We hear Christmas music continuously for about three to four weeks. We are constantly hit with Christmas advertising messages to keep buying. We are anxious about our gifts. Are the recipients going to like the gifts? Should we spend more money? We seem hard pressed to try and remember the reason for Christmas or for any religious holiday since the daily messages are to keep buying!

As I was thinking about the holidays, I also started thinking about how some executives like to run their organizations like some of the hectic holidays. They thrive on chaos and the hussle and stress. Other executives thrive on simplicity and peacefulness. I wonder if these executives celebrate their holidays in the same way they manage organizations?!

I know that when I ran an organization, I had a goal to take a holiday in the Grand Canyon six months after start-up. That meant I had to get the organization to a calm state where I could leave without worrying about a crisis. Coincidentally (or not) I also crave ways to simplify my holidays so that they are relaxing and thoughtful.

Many want to know what their leadership style is ...perhaps it is revealed in your preference for how you like to spend your holidays.

Something to think about!

Wealthy charities

2009-10-05T15:38:00.000-07:00

A couple of blogs ago, I wrote about how executives should be measured on performance and should be rewarded upon that. I suppose I had better be clearer, given the previous week's scandal in Toronto, Canada.

"Sick Kids charity boss gets $2.7 M send-off" was one headline of a major newspaper in Canada. Because the head of the foundation was given an early send-off, the foundation had to buy him out of his contract, which included his $600,000 salary. This story hit all the major papers in Canada, but it seemed to die out rather quickly without much follow-up. The foundation has taken responsibility and promises greater transparency. Their next Foundation President will make $400,000 plus bonuses- still a hefty amount when compared to other heads of organizations that do more than just fundraise.

Charities are supposed to be accountable in delivering services to their clients. Fundraising should be based upon need. We need $1000,000 to support... therefore, we need to raise $1,000,000. Yet when you hear that 40% of every dollar raised goes to fundraising, you wonder whether the charity has forgotten who the client is and also whether the money raised is necessary for the clients or is it just a fundraising goal. Turning it around, if the charity only raised 60% of the goal, then that would be sufficient for paying for the client services ( which includes research). Part of the 40% should go to pay for costs incurred, but over 20% could support another charity or many other charities that are also in need. It should begin to make us skeptical of fundraising goals and of rewarding those charities that raise money just because they want to reach a goal, not because there are well-defined projects to fund.

Something to think about.

"us, them"

2009-09-28T16:54:00.000-07:00

Don't you find it ironic that so many groups that are working together helping to support a cause are also working against each other? It is referred to as the "us, them" syndrome.

Board members can exclude Executive Directors from social functions and key strategic decision-making because the Directors are not one of them.

Executive Directors and senior management can set strategies that impact clients without consulting their front-line staff who are the ones dealing with the clients regularly.

Staff members can treat clients like they are sub-human and can feel that clients don't need the same priviledges as they do.

Agencies can treat funders with disrespect. They will take the money, but they don't feel the funders have the right to question how they use the money or what impact it will make.

This list can go on, but these are the common types of complaints I have heard over my ten years of providing workshops. Eliminating these attitudinal barriers are not easy because they are not obvious to most unless you are looking for them and yet the victims of these attitudes do not forget easily. I can hear and feel their anger.

Why do we create these barriers? Do we like to have power over others as others perhaps have or have had over us? Do we still like to be in the "in" crowd and demand others to recognize this fact?

Yet, when people can overcome their "us,them" attitudes, it is truly heartwarming. I remember working at an agency and there was a former cop working the security desk. This man was unpleasant to our clients and their children. For months, he would frown, but suddenly one day, I saw him smiling and playing with one of the young children. His whole countenance had changed. The child had been continually smiling at the man until one day he could no longer keep his distance. From that day, the man couldn't have been friendlier to those who were friendly to him. In this instance, it was a race issue. I say was because he no longer saw race as a difference. He began to see the child like any other child, and I am sure his days became pleasanter.

As part of the human race, we seem to look for differences and in some countries we celebrate differences, but is it at the expense of finding what makes us all the same first?

Something to think about!

Executive Pay for Performance

2009-09-22T11:21:00.000-07:00

Over the past couple of weeks, there has been much discussion around executive bonuses. Should executives be paid bonuses when their companies had received bail outs from the government? Has their performance justified the bonus?

In the non-profit sector, bonuses are given very discreetly, if given at all. Many people feel that executives in the non-profit sector should not be paid very much so salaries are not readily disclosed. Discussing bonuses could quite possibly be the kiss of death! Is that right?

Personally, I think executives should be paid bonuses, but only if they improve their bottom-line which if any one has followed my blogs means that they have improved client success - not that they have just been financially sustainable. However, I also believe that agencies that are successful with their client results will also inevitably be successful in raising money, if they know how to make the right ask.

Executives, in the non-profit sector, have much to contend with on a daily basis. When you are working with people and your clients are all people, every day is different. There are so many potential issues that can arise and it is the very good executive who can strategically reduce issues and create solutions that will in the end mean greater success for the clients and everyone associated with their success.

Defining and measuring organizational outcomes is a fairly accurate way to measure overall client success. It is a strategic measure that can bring everyone together to focus on a common end goal. Executives who have stated their organizational outcomes and have shown improvement should be rewarded. In the private sector, it is perfectly acceptable and in fact motivational to reward employees that have achieved goals so why shouldn't it also be acceptable in the non-profit sector? Why do we feel we need to keep it quiet?

Something to think about!

"Three Cups of Tea"

2009-09-14T16:46:00.000-07:00

During the cold months earlier this year, I had a chance to read a highly recommended book called, "Three Cups of Tea" written by David Oliver about an exceptional man called Greg Mortenson. What a book!! This story, highlighting miraculous changes, takes place mostly in the war areas of Pakistan and Afganistan.

Miracle one:
He was able to unite people from communities by focusing on one common goal - providing space and teachers to educate their children. Cultural groups, including members of the Taliban, overcame their differences in other areas because this dream of educating their children was far more important.

Miracle two:
On top of that, here was an American, a perceived enemy to some groups, finding the funding to help their children...unselfishly and involving even more Americans as the funders.

Miracle three:
I had heard that his schools had not been attacked by the Taliban and yet many schools are for girls only. Mr. Mortenson believes it is because the community feels it is their school, and the community will fight hard to defend it.
Note: the Taliban do not believe in educating girls and had closed down schools in southern Afganistan after they threw out the Russians. This year, in Pakistan, girls in other schools had acid thrown in their faces.

I highly recommend this book. It reminds me that we need to find what makes us , the human race, similar and build on that, not what makes us different. This book also reminds me that focusing on a few powerful, outcomes is ideal and it is the simplicity of the outcomes that makes everyone understand and be able to come together to make miracles a reality.

Something to think about...

Fresh starts

2009-09-10T11:26:00.001-07:00

How many of you feel that September is the month to start fresh - feel like a new beginning? I certainly do. I find it is a time to review life and see how to make it more rewarding and more challenging.

I know many of you buy new outfits for your children and also for yourself. As well, it is sign-up time for sports activities like soccer, basketball, gymnastics, and cross-country running - again for your children, but also for you. Who says adults can't take up the same activities?

Yesterday, I have started my own cooking challenge. Since I am a rather poor cook, I got inspired by the "Julia and Julie" movie. Although, instead of cooking all the recipes from one of Julia Child's cookbooks, I have decided to take a healthier cookbook and go through all the recipes. This book provides twenty-eight days of meal plans and recipes that are healthy and somewhat easy-to- make. The book is called, "Food Matters" by New Yorker, Mark Bittman. While Pots and food crumbs are everywhere, the recipes are delicious so far. I recommend this challenge to anyone who wants to eat healthier and better.

Professionally, I will be introducing new services to a different target group in the non-profit sector. I am very excited because it will give me a chance to make a greater impact in this sector.

What are you going to do to challenge yourself this fall? Besides changing clothes, reading new books or watching new movies, what else will you do that will make you feel that a part of you is experiencing something fresh?

Professionally, we fall into ruts so easily and don't want to change. We may not like where we are, but we sure don't want to put ourselves in a position where we don't know what will happen and yet... Think of some of those times when you have had to overcome your fears or your nerves, like moving to a new school or changing jobs or pushing yourself to join a club where you didn't know anyone. There is nothing like realizing that this new experience has made you feel better.

We push the "refresh button" on our computers. Why don't you push your own internal refresh button and see where, besides personally, you would like to be in the next four months? What skills would you like to learn? How would you like to be feeling? Could you start your own business or turn a hobby into a money-making venture part-time? JUST think about the next four months - no further.

Something to think about...

negativity at workshops

2009-05-08T06:16:00.000-07:00

I am sure we have all attended a workshop either on-site or off-site and have had one person's negativity impact the rest of us. Either we ignore it and try to stay focused or we succumb to their negativity and find ourselves becoming more critical. When I talk about negative behaviour, I am not referring to people that question your tools or approach, I am referring to people who make irrelevant side comments and look to others to support them in their opinions.

As a facilitator and a teacher of hundreds of workshops and student classes, I can see the dynamics from the front of the room. It is like being on a lake and watching a rainstorm approaching. You can see it coming, but you are not sure of how hard it will hit and how long it will last. You do everything to minimize the impact, but you have to wait and watch.

I understand that people attend workshops under pressure and therefore do not want to be there and hope others will express the same feeling. Some just want the day off and could care less about the learnings - the food is of more interest. However, thankfully most attend because they want to grow professionally.

I remember hearing Peter Drucker say that as a teacher he had to learn to teach to those who wanted to be there and not to those who are not motivated. That is very hard to do because you can see changes in people that rise to the challenge, but in many cases, it is at the expense of those who are already motivated and ready to learn.

How can you tell who are motivated? They tend to be the happiest people. You can see it in their eyes and in their manner. They ask questions respectfully, they participate and they take notes on points of interest to them. When there are enough motivated people, they set the tone, and in many cases, they can actually change the negativity of others. It is rarely the facilitator.

Something to think about...when you attend your next workshop.

Let the outcomes fall where they may

2009-04-25T11:37:00.000-07:00

As I was hiking with a friend today, she was telling me how a prisoner was changing the behaviour of other convicts for the good. In one story, he was trying to get prisoners to take out their anger or rage on furniture instead of on people. The prisoners wanted to kill a cruel guard. This wise prisoner suggested they destroy furniture instead. He had the prisoners understand the impact of this different outcome. By damaging property in the prison, they were going to make this cruel guard stay overtime. The prisoners were satisfied with this different plan. The man's life was spared, but his cruel actions were not ignored.

It reminded me of how important it is to have a definite outcome in mind for any organization. With a set outcome, everyone can then go the next step and begin to assess the impact of their actions. With no definite end outcome, the process becomes more important. People will only focus on their own daily activities or programs without analyzing the long term impact of their actions. You don't ask yourself whether there is a better way of getting the same or better results? How do you know if you don't know where you are trying to go.

The insightful prisoner could have agreed with his peers and organized a way to kill the cruel guard, but the impact of their actions would have meant more prison time for everyone and a lost life. Instead he figured out a way to get the same satisfaction without causing more harm to everyone involved. As a team, spending the time to create a similar outcome or end goal and then going the step further to imagine what the impact will mean will reduce inefficient activities and energy within your organization and could end up saving or rebuilding more lives.

Something to think about!

What does the economic downturn mean for NGOs

2009-02-09T15:58:00.000-08:00

For most of us, we are living through our first, large scale economic crisis in decades. From an economic viewpoint, there is a shortage of money supply. People are not buying. Governments are trying to change this situation by pumping funds into the system under what is called a stimulus package. Get people working, and get people spending.

So how does this impact the NGO's? When people are trying to survive debt, firings or layoffs, they are less apt to give money away to help others. What will you do?

As corporations tighten their spending so must NGO's. You must see where in your own organization you can be more efficient. Perhaps there is a service or program that is really not essential to client success. Perhaps you are trying to offer too much. Maybe, you need to do more partnerships with other similar agencies to offer more with less.

Now is also the time to decide where in your organization you really need the money. Making focused asks that specifically outline where the money will be used and how it will improve client success are your best chances of succeeding. Asking donors for an increase from last year is no longer effective.

Larger NGO's will need to refrain from doing capital campaigns since those campaigns drain money from other NGOs. Even if the NGO has enough wealthy donors to support it, the rest of the community will suffer. There is no longer enough money to support all the demands.

Now what will you do to survive?

Something to think about!

Who is your client?

2009-02-03T12:48:00.000-08:00

I had quite the discussion with one of my teaching peers about who the client is for non-profit organizations. Do you know who your client is?

If you are a direct service agency, you will find it easier to answer this question, but if you are an umbrella organization, then is your client the people that you are raising the money for or the service provider agencies that offer the services? To add one more, is your client the researchers or the funders?

My argument was that whoever you are servicing, as stated in your mission, is your client. Well, you might say that is still not clear. Let's use an example. Supposing you worked for the national cancer society and your mission at the head office was "to find cures for patients suffering from various types of cancer. We will do this through extensive research." Who would be your client or possibly client(s)?

This can create quite the debate and has!! I would argue that the client is or are all the cancer patients. My colleague would argue that it is the researchers.

Let me throw something out at you. Supposing we were to take the researchers as the clients, then our success could be measured by finding the reseachers and the money to undertake extensive research. In other words, we could be judging our success by number of ongoing research projects. That is process. Yes, researchers do want to find cures, but...

If we were to take the cancer patients as the primary client, then success would ultimately be based upon finding cures for various forms of cancer or for increasing the survival rate. The focus is ultimately back on the person who is suffering from the disease.

Something to think about!

Outcomes

2009-01-26T15:47:00.000-08:00

There are a few different outcome development models around. Many of these models tend to focus on program outcomes - very few on organizational outcomes; however, I think the organizational outcome is the most important.

The most read statement in an agency's brochure is the mission statement. In a mission statement you define who the need is for, what the need is, why it is important and how you will meet the need and in some cases where the agency is located.

After reading a mission, most funders want to know how:

What are you trying to achieve and are you achieving it?

Organizational outcomes are about answering the above questions. On the other hand, program outcomes just tell you about the various pieces and whether they are or are not working. You may have some programs that are very successful and others not so. So what? This doesn't make you as accountable to your funders because piecemeal results don't tell funders whether overall your clients have achieved what you have stated in your mission.

Organizational outcomes, if properly measured, will also keep you constantly reviewing your organizational alignment. Checking alignment will keep you focused on offering programs or services that are aligned with your mission. Everything is integrated.

Something to think about!!

Contributing Members of Society

2009-01-12T13:48:00.000-08:00

Many non-profit agencies struggle with understanding outcomes and how to implement them within their own agencies. Sometimes, agencies look to other agencies or consultants to develop their outcomes for them. This can be more harmful than helpful, but I won't get into that discussion at this time. Instead, I want you to think about how you would like each of your client's to be as a result of using your services or programs.

When I founded my own agency to deal with the growing homeless crisis, I began the agency with one sole purpose - to get as many of our clients contributing to society. If anyone has read Victor Frankl's, "Man's Search for Meaning", you will know that Frankl believed that people who have a purpose or a meaning to their lives will then overcome and deal with many barriers that life has to offer. He created his own therapy called, logotherapy. This therapy was developed based upon his observations as a prisoner in one of the concentration camps during World War II. Victor Frankl's theories have framed how I believe people are motivated. When I developed the term "contributing member of society", it was to reflect his theory that when people are contributing in some way, they feel greater purpose or meaning in their lives.

If everone were to have some kind of purpose or meaning in life, then I think we would find or create a very different type of society. As I worked more and more with the homeless and later with the mentally and phsically challenged, the elderly, and the First Nations, I found that society tended to think pouring money into the various groups that were not currently contributing to society was the best solution. Give them money and let them survive, but I think this deprives individuals of the ability to discover their own purpose or meaning and consequently move from just surviving to thriving. If we could provide or create more opportunities for more people to "contribute to society", we would be giving populations a chance to feel a purpose or develop some meaning within society.

Therefore, if you are still struggling with outcomes, then think about finding ways to have more of your clients become contributing members of society. That may be your most powerful outcome.

Something to think about...

bottom line for non-profits

2009-01-05T13:25:00.000-08:00

Have you ever been in a fundraising meeting and the funder has asked you what your bottom line is? Most funders expect you to answer in financial terms because to the corporate sector, bottom line means net profit or net surplus (some use the expression to force you to get to the point, but we will save that for another discussion).

I would like to challenge you to think about what the bottom line equivalent really should be in the non-profit sector. Businesses are typically in business to make money; otherwise, why would you be in business? We won't get into tax havens or write-offs here!

So, the bottom line for the corporate or for-profit sector is whether or not you did. Excuse the pun, but that makes sense. If your goal is to make money, then your bottom-line should be showing whether you have or not.

In the not-for-profit sector, what is the goal? Since most agencies deal with people, I think the end goal for most agencies is to have as many clients succeed or meet the purpose of your agency. So, I think the bottom line for non-profit agencies should be based upon how many clients have succeeded. This is also be known as the organizational outcome.

Since most non-profit agencies are established based upon meeting some kind of societal need, would not the bottom line be whether or not you have come closer to solving that need? If your mission states that you will find jobs for homeless youth, then shouldn't your bottom line be whether or not you have?

I am not saying that financial stability is not important. It certainly is, but I believe it is a means to the end, not the end. If you agree with my thinking, then think about how much time you devote to client success versus how much time you spend towards raising or cutting funds.

Many agencies that I have worked with over the past eight years have not really figured out their end goal in terms of client success. They are unsure of how to define it. They can tell me how many clients are currently using or have used their services, but they can't tell me what kind of success they expect from clients as a result of using their services or programs.

Consequently, it becomes easier to define the bottom line as financial stability.

Something to think about!!

First Steps

2008-12-09T09:14:00.003-08:00

Starting at the beginning