In a conversation the other day with a friend who is a major donor and volunteer working on a capital campaign, she asked me about the efficacy of email versus direct mail. As we talked about the pros and cons of each, I quickly noticed that we weren't really talking about these tactics - or, well, we were, but that wasn't the real issue. The real issue plaguing the progress of my friend's capital campaign was the lack of an overall strategy for the entire effort - the "campaign" part of the equation was missing.

The reason capital campaigns are so named is because raising some factor more than an organization's annual budget (which is generally part of what defines a capital campaign) takes time. Maintaining momentum, knowing where the organization stands as time marches on, and what to do differently in each stage of a campaign is what makes for success. And the key to an effective campaign is a plan.

Someone who has been through a campaign before, someone who knows how to perceive the "lay of land" (in this case, who are the prospects, what do they care about, how much can they give, what will motivate them to do so, etc.) and someone who can galvanize others (in other words, a leader) is needed to develop a plan that will carry the organization through from alpha to omega in the process. Needless to say, this plan must be strategic and visionary - in other words, it must consider the big picture and the long range. It also must be flexible, identifying key indicators that call for this option or that. It must also have milestones so everyone involved can see what progress is being made and that trigger certain activities from specified people.

In my friend's case, the lack of a campaign plan became clear to me because of several things she mentioned: 1) they were moving into "Phase 2" of the campaign, 2) they were beginning the public appeal process, from which they expected to raise $250-500k, and 3) they still needed to raise a third of the total. For starters, most campaigns have three or more fundraising phases, the last of which is the public appeal. This may seem counterintuitive: why wouldn't you want to let as many people know about the campaign as early as possible so you could raise money from as many people as you can? Well, the reason is that most campaigns raise the largest amount of funds from a few major donors. For example, my friend's $15M campaign has already raised $10M, and only about 20 people have committed funds so far. This is pretty typical.

Also, the "public appeal" raises the smallest dollar amount, but involves the largest number of people. Because of this, it signals the time to make a big public announcement of the campaign. And this takes place when the overall success of the campaign is assured. (No organization wants to face the reputation crusher of a campaign announced that doesn't reach its goal or fails altogether!) It is a very important phase, galvanizing the entire community around the cause, but it should not be announced prematurely - whether by email or snail mail or any other tactic.

Finally, when my friend told me her organization still needed to raise a third of their total (~$5 million), but that they were starting the public appeal from which they expected $250-500k, it was clear that the overall logic and sequencing of the campaign had not been worked out. When a campaign plan is weak or missing, a common result will be debates over the merits of tactics, instead of evaluating them based on a common understanding of the campaign's phases and overall momentum. These debates can degenerate into full-on conflict if the organization doesn't address the underlying issue - and fast.

There are plenty of fabulous new ways to raise money these days - and discussing the merits and options among them is a great idea. However, one thing hasn't changed and isn't likely to: raising big money is a big undertaking and requires big leadership with a big-thinking plan. That's why a capital campaign is still just that - a campaign.

By Rebecca Reynolds


Donor motivation isn't mysterious. It’s common sense.

All choices are influenced by what motivates us - that's obvious. Whether a potential donor chooses to give to an organization or not is one such choice - and the possible motivations for giving or not are various. As a colleague said to me today "when someone asks what makes a donor give, I say, show me the donor." In other words, people have different motivations for making the choices they make.

We all share similar motivations, but some of them (and some combinations of them) are more common to certain types of funders. Some donor motivations include:      

- Participate in something worthwhile
- Become involved with something in which one believes
- Increase connection to something cared about
- Align with something positive
- Support shared beliefs, values, priorities
- Respond to a friend’s request
- Gain access to a particular group of people 
- Recognition of an effective effort
- Assuage guilt
- Give back 
- Learn something
- Support a desired change
- Get a tax deduction

Donor motivation is one of the most important aspects of fundraising since it's what drives the donor to give or not. Unfortunately, donor motivation is something many nonprofits fail to carefully consider. And the result is too often one-size-fits-all fundraising.  An organization that doesn’t understand or consider donor motivation in its fundraising program is like a person visiting a foreign country without considering the language barrier. Effective fundraising means understanding donor motivation and actively addressing it.

How does an organization effectively address donor motivation? Well, ideally, each donor would be cultivated using tailor-made communications, materials and benefits to fit their unique motivations. And this is exactly what makes major gift fundraising successful. However, creating a custom package for every single donor simply is not possible - so successful fundraising designs different campaigns to appeal to a broad range of predictable donor motivations.

The important thing to remember is that motivation creates expectation.

Motivations create expectations from the donors about what the organization should do once it has their money. For example, some individual donors may expect nothing more than a good feeling that they helped out, but most also expect, at minimum, an
acknowledgment of their gift for tax purposes. Others may expect some form of recognition (name listed in a program, annual report or on a website); some will expect inclusion in events and perhaps even something tangible like a mug or poster. 

Corporations’ motivations for giving are generally related to marketing. Specific expectations may include various opportunities for name alignment with the organization, entertainment opportunities for customers and employees, and visibility of the brand and/or
products. Foundations, on the other hand, are in the business of investing in nonprofit organizations and so have the expectation of an effective service or product delivered with evidence of its benefit achieved. Foundations’ funding motivations and expectations then are more similar to a bank considering a loan. Although the foundation doesn’t expect or want to be repaid, it will use similar criteria to assess the worthiness of the nonprofit as a recipient of its funding.

Effective fundraising programs take into account these differing motivations and expectations, and design clear communication up front about what expectations will be met and how. However, when gifts are received fundraising work is still not complete. The successful nonprofit follows through on what has been promised to the donor - in other words, fulfills the expectation, and in doing so, sets the stage for the next fundraising appeal.

Fundraising is a cycle of relationship. Knowing and anticipating your donors' motivations, designing ways to appeal to them, and following through all create a satisfying donor experience. And a satisfied donor is a repeat giver, just about every time.  

Nonprofit-KnowHow covers this topic in greater detail in the Fundraising 101 and Asking for Money chapters. Find out more. 

By Rebecca Reynolds

Nonprofit organizations, like any group working together for a common purpose, carve out certain of their activities in order to delegate them. For example, the board works on strategic planning, the development staff work on grant writing, the accountant sets up the financials, and so on. This makes good sense - certainly everyone can't (and shouldn't) be involved with everything. That's obvious.

What isn't always as obvious though is when and how these activities should be brought back together.

In consulting with a wide range of nonprofits, I found that it was often my client's ability to see the connections between activities such as strategic planning, board development and grantwriting that really gained the client a quantum leap in their thinking and approaches. So, while delineating and delegation of work activity is key to getting things done, if the results of those activities are not re-connected for the benefit of the whole, the organization suffers.

For example, in many organizations development people write grants for funding from major foundations. Since foundations ask crucial management questions, effective grant proposals express the nonprofit's strategic approach to its mission and to the particular funding request. But even so, few if any board members - or in many cases, even executive directors - ever read the proposals. Nor in many cases, did the grant writers have access to the organization's strategic plan as the foundation for writing the proposals. This disconnect between two primary activities in the organization means a weaker, less effective grant proposal and a weaker, less-informed board.

And this is just one example of how the silo-ing of basic activities in a nonprofit can hinder its overall success.

What can be done about this? The most effective leaders think through what re-integration makes the most sense and then develop the mechanism in their organization by which it will occur. For example, it makes sense that good budget development requires the information provided by past years' financial statements and input from key staff responsible for earned income and for contributed. Leadership should develop policy and procedure to ensure that cross-pollination between responsible board and staff members takes place in budget development as a matter of routine, rather than expecting (or assuming) it to happen as the result of the initiative of those involved. 

In another example, fundraising and marketing campaigns should originate with the strategic plan, but too often these efforts are developed in isolation. This could be the result of the organization not having a strategic plan (or it being out of date) or it could be that leadership has not made it clear that these efforts must synchronize with each other. To address this, leadership could pass policy that all development and marketing materials will reflect the priorities and language of the organization's strategic plan, and then create procedure whereby the board collectively reviews marketing and fundraising materials, e.g., the basic grant proposal template, on an annual basis. Not only would this ensure that there is a strategic plan, that development staff have access to it, and that the intersection of these efforts actually takes place, but also that board members are up-to-date on what is being communicated about the organization.

This may seem obvious, but it's surprising how often nonprofits struggle to delegate activities effectively, and once this is accomplished, consider that the end of the matter. Or they chalk it up to a communication issue and assume the responsible individuals will take care of it. In fact, it is in the bringing of these delegated activities back together by leadership that the real benefits are realized. This is because, simply, everything is connected to and impacts everything else in an organization. A culture that values and nurtures this synergy is what makes for a balanced, resilient, innovative organization - instead of a siloed, reactionary, and defensive one.

The more the leadership of a nonprofit is fluent with the intersection between areas of major activity, the better able it will be to lead. This agility and breadth of understanding across the organization enables an organization to go from good to great, to use Jim Collins’ phrase. While specialized expertise in areas like development, planning, marketing, technology and finance is critical in today's world, it is leadership's ability to integrate them - to see what is greater than the sum of their parts - that gets big results.

Nonprofit-KnowHow: The Guide and The Workbook supports nonprofit leaders in reintegrating often siloed activities such as strategic planning, fundraising, board development, finance and more, for greater resilience and impact. Explore how here.

Guest Blog Post

by Sheri Chaney Jones

“That is what every nonprofit needs, but can’t afford.”         
 
This was said to me by a nonprofit director when I was describing that my organization helps nonprofits measure and communicate their impact and value. She is not alone. Many nonprofit leaders incorrectly perceive program evaluation and data-driven decision making as a luxury they cannot afford.  

My new acquaintance is correct that every nonprofit needs to be engaged in program and outcome measurement. Organizations with high measurement cultures systematically collect and use a variety of data to manage operations and demonstrate effectiveness. Organizations with high measurement cultures are significantly more likely to report increases in positive press, funding, efficiency, staff morale and organizational change.  

The nonprofit director was also correct that a perception exists among nonprofit leaders that they cannot afford measurement activities. This perception prevents organizations from engaging in these critical tools. Although eighty-one percent of nonprofit leaders surveyed by the Center for Effective Philanthropy believe nonprofits should demonstrate the effectiveness of their work through performance measures, our research reveals that only 32% of nonprofits are fully embracing a high measurement culture. Lack of funding and resources are often cited as the main obstacles.

There is good news. This perception is a myth!  No correlation exists between organizations successfully using data to demonstrate effectiveness and a nonprofit’s budget and size. In other words, there are several small nonprofits excelling at program evaluation and then there are very large organizations not using or collecting the required data.

How nonprofits demonstrate and communicate effectiveness is a predictor of organizational success. Demonstrating impact is becoming increasingly more important as funders shift toward outcomes-based funding. Nonprofits excelling because of their data-driven practices go beyond using performance measures and outcomes data as an external reporting tool. They have the right measures, organizational structures, and leadership in place to systematically use these data to manage programs, make improvements, and demonstrate their unique impact and value. 

Greatness starts with the commitment of an organization’s leader to move from having data to achieving excellence with data.  Here are three distinct features that separate the “great” from the “good enough.”

1.     Defining Success:  Great organizations measure success based on the distinct impact they are making and the effectiveness of their services delivered relative to their resources. In addition to measuring participants served, money raised, and activities performed, they measure outcomes -- the extent their programs and services have changed lives and circumstances for their participants, stakeholders, and communities.  
  
2.    Leadership:  Great nonprofit leaders never take their eyes off the mission. They lead with humility and passion for the mission and do whatever it takes (ethically) to fully realize this mission. They align their measures with this mission. Great leaders use these measures to make course corrections when results are less desirable. Data are also used to celebrate success when desired targets are met.  
  
3.     Culture:  Great organizations consistently strive for a high-performance culture with a foundation built on performance and outcome measures. They do this by hiring and retaining the right people for their organizations. They understand that talent can compensate for lack of resources, but money never compensates for lack of the right people. To keep the right people, they create systems based on data, learning, feedback and autonomy. These elements encourage, motivate and reward their high-achieving, positive, self-motivated team members. They avoid the “doing more with less” syndrome by seeking the right people and creating the right data-driven systems that naturally produce more with less.  
  
Great nonprofits let go of the excuse that performance and outcome measurement are “too expensive”. Instead they ask,  "How can we achieve our desired impact and excellence?" Measurement is an essential tool that helps nonprofits achieve greatness regardless of organizational size and budget.  

The first step toward excellence is to create and use success measures. Once this commitment is made, organizations find the resources needed to successfully engage in the activities. Those who are successful know that performance measurement is achievable, can fit within their budget, can be done with their own staff, and will lead to positive results!

Sheri Chaney Jones, President of Measurement Resources Company, improves the social sector through the use of measurement, evaluation, and organizational development.  For more measurement tips, download Sheri’s free eBook, Ten Tips to Open the Door to More Grants (and Other Funding).  Overcoming Common Mistakes in Outcomes Measurement.

Measurement Resources helps organizations successfully collect, organize, and use impactful data so they can fully achieve their missions.  Clients save public dollars, demonstrate effectiveness, and increase revenues as a result of working with Measurement Resources.

People want to be inspired by a grand destination and clear about what they will do to get there, just as they want a say in both.

By Rebecca Reynolds

Vision - Mission. These two little words could hardly be more misunderstood. It's odd. And worse, it's debilitating for the organizations suffering under the misunderstanding. Here are some of the common misapprehensions:

1) "Vision and Mission generally mean the same thing." Nope. I frequently hear people refer to their "vision/mission" or sometimes their "mission/vision." While it's true that an organization's vision statement and mission statement rely on each other so fundamentally that the organization should have both and should use them together, the two statements are quite different. We'll get to how below.

2) "We only have a mission statement." Not good. This implies that the vision statement isn't really important, but to me signals that the organization simply doesn't know what a vision statement is (and why it's important) so, of course, they don't have one.

3) "Vision - mission, whatever." Yikes. This world-weary attitude signals that the organization has given up entirely on expressing the two most fundamental aspects of itself - and usually this is for one of two reasons: either the organization is too busy (read, too in the weeds) to make time for them or because it has no idea how to express them in a meaningful way. Past attempts have likely resulted in something more like slogans, which haven't had the gravitas to last - so they gave up all together.

All of the above result in an incredible amount of busy-ness - lots of running around doing, or maybe just lots of running around, but without meaningful result. How can two little words - vision and mission - amount to the difference between effective and not in an organization? How can that be possible?

It is possible. Eminently so. Here's why.

All organizations (dare I say, all groups of people) operate best when everyone involved understands the answers to the two fundamental questions the vision and mission statements answer:

1) Why does the organization exist, for what desired future condition?
2) What is the specific and perhaps unique way the organization has chosen to work toward this future? Or more simply, what does the organization do and for whom?

Without clear answers to these essential questions, the people in the organization may work hard, but without the larger context that gives meaning to that work. This is like saying "let's get ready for a trip," without specifying where we're going. And obviously, saying "we're going to be the best prepared travelers in the world" doesn't help much. The question still is "where are we going?"

In many organizations, the vision statement describes what the organization will look like at some future point. Being "the greatest coffee company in the world" may inspire the owners or shareholders of said coffee company and may be an important thing to make clear to employees, but a real vision statement speaks to what the world will look like in the future as a result of the organization's work. This is what attracts people to an organization - especially nonprofit organizations.

The vision statement describes the desired future that inspires its work, which hopefully is more than simply being the best at what it does. The vision statement speaks to our hearts and to our imaginations. And a good one is so easy to recognize that it can never be forgotten. That's a vision statement doing its job.

The mission statement, on the other hand, grounds us. It speaks to the head. When we first learn of an organization (just like when we meet a person), we want to know what does it do? What's its job? No fluff, no hyperbole, just get to the point.

What. Why. - Head. Heart.

This is so simple, many organizations seem to have forgotten how important it is to answer these questions. And not just in a small room with a few leaders. Although even that's better than nothing. In fact, this is how these questions have been answered for eons. Someone got the inspiration for a grand destination and chose a course of action to get there. Everyone else follows the appointed leader. But since we are changing to a society that more and more wants to be involved in choosing our destinies and what we do to reach them, it's increasingly important to answer these fundamental questions in an open forum with as many people as will be affected.

Ironically, the nonprofit organization is a model for this since it has needed to operate this way forever. The reason being simply that its livelihood depends on people choosing to support it and become involved rather than simply be paid to do a job. This paradigm is the way all business will be done, since it's no longer good enough, for most of us, to be told what to do. People want to be inspired by a grand destination and clear about what they will do to get there, just as they want a say in both. This is collective leadership in action.

In the end, it's not about being able to define vision and mission. What is important is being able to clearly express the answers to the questions they represent. In this way, everyone that comes into contact with the organization can easily understand its importance in the world - which enables them to choose to be a part of it or not. And for those leading their organizations, opening the process of answering these questions to those who will be affected means a more robust, aligned and synergistic organization. What could be better than that?

Guest Blog Post

By Trish Thomas

Inspiring action, igniting change, networking and giving back to the community… these are common incentives driving individuals to serve on non-profit boards. 
 
As a participant on many non-profit boards and advisory boards, I consider my service to be a much more powerful asset than my money.  But before you step out to join a board or recruit new members for an existing board, it is critical that you understand your obligations and the key factors that foster highly-successful boards.

Because non-profit board members are not compensated and profits aren’t the primary goal, it’s easy to believe that board
service is a pleasant endeavor that will let you contribute to your passion and make new friends.  But board seats are a deep responsibility and a job that requires serious care and attention. 

Beyond the general duties of care and loyalty, the immense possibilities of a non-profit board are unleashed by assembling the
right mix of members and ensuring that they work together in the boardroom. Here are some organizational and personal characteristics to consider as you build a board or select a board to join:

Choose people who understand and advocate for the mission.  One of the key tasks of boards is to build community awareness and raise the stature of the organization.  Directors are not equipped to do this if they don’t align with the cause at a deep, personal level.

Don’t overload the board.  Determine a manageable number of individuals that will be active and contribute in tangible ways.  Not every large donor should be given a seat on the board.  Advisory boards or founders committees can be a great way to honor and leverage friends of the organization without wasting board seats.  I find that boards of ten or less can overwhelm members with work, but huge boards make it hard to hold fair and complete discussions in meetings.  Find the right size for maximum effectiveness and fill seats wisely.

Be sure the board has the right goal in mind. Some boards need to be "working" boards with all members volunteering significant time.  Some boards need to raise funds through sponsored events and capital campaigns, so they need directors with fat checkbooks.  And some boards may be focused on capacity building or improving governance.  The focus of each board should be driven by the organization’s needs.

Every solid board needs to have financial acumen built in.  There should be financially astute members who are knowledgeable and willing to serve on finance and audit committees.  But beyond that, every single director should understand how to read financial statements, ask hard questions, and be fully engaged in financial and strategic planning.

Find board members who are eager to participate within the organization. Money is great, and every board member should give annually, but it is more important that energy, connections and expertise are on the table.  Willingness to take the time and effort to understand strategic, financial and operational issues, engage personally with the staff and activities, and stay current on sound governance principles are all ingredients for success.

Build diversity into the board.  A wide range of individuals of varying genders, ancestry, incomes, ages and levels of connection to the organization are crucial. Blending experienced directors with new additions to the boardroom helps  mix best practices with enthusiasm.  It is also helpful to have some people in the room who are neither large donors nor recipients of services because they bring external perspective.  In my service as the chair of The Women’s Wilderness Institute board, one of our primary champions on the board is male.  Gary is deeply committed to the cause and his unique ideas and skills are pivotal to the board performing well.  A board with all female directors would not serve the organization as well as a gender-balanced board.

Understand each board member’s drivers and ensure that they are coming to the board for the right reasons. If everyone’s
objectives are clear from day one, the board will have a stronger and more effective dynamic than if directors’ interests are at odds and taint the board.  For example, if a member is on the staff of another non-profit and hopes to see the two organizations
partner, that is fine. But the entire board needs to be aware of their intention up front to preserve transparency and goodwill.

Collegiality matters!  I’ve seen stellar people break down boards because they can’t work and play with others.  The ability to
collaborate well and show respect for the ideas and views of fellow board members and staff should be a highly prized trait on a board; as well as the understanding that boards operate as a body not as individuals. 
  
At a non-profit there is so much at stake!  For starters, the very cause of the organization is on the line, as is its survival.  That
is actually a higher ethical directive than just ensuring that a corporation’s bottom-line is trending up.  A non-profit board not only provides governance and safeguards the organization’s mission, the board also takes responsibility for capacity building, sustainability and fundraising.  
 
By treating board service as the valuable and serious commitment that it is, you can unlock the possibilities of the boardroom
and gather people in effort and equality to accomplish great things - ultimately making a powerful positive impact on your community and the world. 

Trish Thomas, owner of Trish Thomas Consulting, LLC, holds a BS in Computer Information Systems and a MBA in Management & Strategy. An expert in fast track business growth, she has over 18 years of business management experience spanning a wide range of industries, as well as 11 years in ownership of private firms.

Trish currently serves on boards for the Better Business Bureau, the Deming Center for Entrepreneurship at CU Boulder, the University of Denver Women's College, The Womens Wilderness Institute, The Family Garden and The Other Side of Everest Educational Foundation.  She is a thought leader who delights in sharing knowledge, connections and inspiration, as well as acting as an innovator, optimist and protagonist who empowers people to change the world.

By Rebecca Reynolds

"Nonprofits aren't sustainable." How many times have I heard that? Too many. The idea that nonprofits aren't sustainable, that they are too dependent on gifts and grants, that they can only truly succeed with some sort of earned income stream reveals a fundamental lack of understanding about the nonprofit business model. Let's take a look.

First off, the idea that only earned income (the exchange of goods or services for money) is sustainable is ridiculous. How many for profit businesses have gone out of business because their source of earned income was no longer viable? Plenty. Earned income falls prey to the same ups and downs of the market that contributed income does. So, it's more apt to say that what is sustainable is having a broad enough income stream (funds coming in from a variety of sources) to ride the vicissitudes of the economy. Just as a financial advisor advises for a retirement portfolio, this is common sense.

Second, contributed income (grants and gifts) being unsustainable long-term is also ridiculous. United Way, Planned Parenthood, and the Boys and Girls Clubs of America - to name a mere few - have been in the nonprofit business with substantial funds coming from donations for more than 100 years each. That sounds pretty darned sustainable to me.

"Over dependence on gifts and grants" is like saying that Coca-Cola has an over dependence on its customers' willingness or ability to buy their product. Ridiculous. In fact, people have always been interested in contributing to good works, especially when there is the added incentive of a tax write-off for doing so. This doesn't mean these gifts can be taken for granted, any more than Coke can keep selling the same old way without regard to changing demographics, social trends and other market drivers. Nonprofits need to innovate just as continually and effectively as Nike or Coke (and rely on those specialists with the expertise to do so - more on this below).

Now let's look at where these fallacious ideas come from. I usually hear the nonprofit sustainability criticism coming from people in the for profit sector (often people with MBAs!) The idea of contributed income - money given without material gain - is foreign there (and I daresay, anathema). So, too many nonprofits are misdirected by board members coming from for profits who, not understanding the asset of the 501(c)3 or the profession of fundraising, push earned income methods such as golf tournaments, galas, and now online programs - all to avoid "dependence" on gifts. This misses the entire point of the nonprofit sector business model!

There's nothing at all wrong with golf tournaments or galas - many nonprofits make good money and many new friends with these types of revenue generators. But there also is nothing wrong with writing grant proposals to foundations that are in the business of granting money each year (5% of their funds, by law) or cultivating relationships with major donors who are looking for ways to put their money to good use. Nor is there anything wrong with applying for government grants that are specifically designed to encourage innovation and good works beyond the reach and ability of government.

In fact, the nonprofit sector is set up to benefit from the fact that it does good and important work for our society that is, for the most part, not commercially viable (if it was, there'd be a for profit taking it on, you can be sure!) In exchange for this good work, the American people 1) don't require income tax be paid on any profits generated (and yes, nonprofits CAN make a profit - it just can't be distributed to owners or shareholders) and 2) allow those who financially support these good works through organizations with 501(c)3 status to deduct the amount on their tax returns. In this way, nonprofits have an income stream wholly unique to them, with people expert in capitalizing on it.

And that's my next point. The only time there's anything wrong with gifts and grants is when the people trying to bring funds in from those sources don't have the know-how to do so. Trust me - I've seen it. It's like a group of earnest folks deciding to perform an appendectomy on someone in need - the gesture may be well-intentioned, but most of us would prefer a surgeon. It's no wonder board members get fed up with "fundraising" and want to do something they understand: sell something!

But this is simply cutting off the nonprofit's nose to spite its face. The fundraising profession has gotten better and better as the demand for good work increases (nonprofits account for more start-ups than for profits) and the pace of change drives the need for innovation. Nonprofits can't rest on their laurels and rely on the same foundations, major gifts and government grants year after year. Times change and so must fundraising strategy. In this environment, the value of expert fundraising professionals is significant, and savvy nonprofit boards will view them as just as critical to business success as their mission professionals. 

So, if we agree that sustainability comes from a diverse revenue stream, then nonprofits having contributed as well as earned income makes good business sense. In fact, it makes them incredibly sustainable, which is why the business model still works.

Guest Blog Post
By Marie Belew Wheatley

Colorado Ballet, based in Denver, is about to embark on a unique community education partnership to promote awareness of the dangers of intolerance and discrimination in our community. Along with Lead Partners, Anti-Defamation League, Mizel Museum and the University of Denver, scores of participating organizations and groups will promote human rights through literary, visual and performance art, education and public dialogue.  At this writing, more than 70 organizations have signed up to be community partners in Light/The Holocaust & Humanity Project.  

Light/The Holocaust & Humanity Project is a contemporary ballet based on the life of a Holocaust survivor, created by Stephen Mills, artistic director of Ballet Austin, where the work premiered in 2005.

Most nonprofit managers learn by necessity that we can accomplish more by working with others than by going it alone.  In a strained economy, when contributions become more scarce, particularly for arts and culture organizations, we look for innovative ways to engage others in collaborative efforts that result in a win for all involved. Light/The Holocaust & Humanity Project is an example of this kind of collaboration, positioning Colorado Ballet in the unlikely role of bringing together a broad spectrum of community organizations to rally around a purpose that we can all support. And an added bonus is exposure of the Ballet to groups and individuals who might never have had an interest in seeing a traditional ballet.

Using the arts as a springboard to convene an important community conversation about creating a safe, healthy, inclusive community, Light/The Holocaust & Humanity Project is a three-month endeavor designed to bring Coloradans together in a united front against indifference and prejudice. It is a broad collaboration that includes local arts organizations, human rights groups, schools and universities, museums, private companies, churches, synagogues, Jewish organizations, GLBT groups, women’s organizations, African American groups, and Latino organizations. These and many other institutions offer community events that address issues such as hate, bullying, discrimination, civil rights and equality.

Light/The Holocaust & Humanity Project will begin with a launch event on January 14, 2013, the week prior to Martin Luther King Jr. Day, and run through Holocaust Remembrance Week, in mid-April, 2013. Governor John Hickenlooper and Mayor Michael B. Hancock are honorary chairs of the Light Project.

In addition to Colorado Ballet’s performances of a full-length contemporary ballet based on the life of a Holocaust survivor, community partners’ involvement will include the following: plays, music, opera, book club discussions, poetry and dramatic readings, visual art exhibits, films, museum exhibits, lectures, television documentaries, radio interviews, school programs on anti-bullying, faith-based initiatives on inclusiveness, and ongoing education programs on human rights. 
 
We believe that by leveraging the strengths and competencies of these scores of community organizations, we can create a powerful impact in school rooms, work sites, public gathering places and in homes. All communities include differences and inequities. This collaborative effort will move the needle on how we as individuals and groups accept and respond to those
differences and inequities.

Each Community Partner is being asked to set goals for the number of people they will reach with their program, initiative or activity. At the end of the project, we will report to the community how many groups participated, and how many people were reached with programs on tolerance and inclusivity. 
 
Light will be performed by Colorado Ballet March 29-31, 2013 at the University of Denver’s Newman Center, to music from five notable contemporary composers. For tickets go to: www.coloradoballet.org. Please visit www.coloradoballet.org/Light to see the list of Community Partners, learn how to become a Community Partner and/or to peruse the community calendar of events that will shine the spotlight on discrimination and celebrate the triumph of the human spirit during Light/The Holocaust & Humanity Project.

By Rebecca Reynolds

The idea of term limits for executive staff leaders in nonprofit organizations came up in a LinkedIn group. It's a provocative concept, one that incited a range of comments and got me to thinking.

For the most part, nonprofits take for granted that board governance should specify term limits for its member and officers. There's more than ample evidence that organizations without board term limits eventually experience problems: stagnating board involvement, decreasing vitality and innovation, and, in some cases, a leadership strangle-hold by a few individuals.

But should terms apply to executive staff positions as well? The idea was considered radical and to some, threatening, and I can understand why. One person explained that in smaller communities where the pool of qualified candidates is small, it would be onerous and even risky to the nonprofit's health and stability to observe staff terms. Another suggested that he saw no reason for terms if the executive was still performing well. Others felt it was in some way insulting to a professional to assume prescribe his/her tenure.

As I considered the proposition, I realized that a leadership staff lifecycle occurs organically in all organizations. In other words, all nonprofits at some point outgrow their leadership staff and need to address this eventuality. Some address it more directly and strategically, others - tragically - only when the situation has become dire. In fact, consultants are often called in to help in just these situations.

Organizations that are attune to the signs of staff leadership "terms" expiring, consider and plan for leadership succession as part of their strategic planning and executive leadership evaluation processes. Those organizations that are not explicitly attune, will instead be faced with the symptoms of leadership that is "beyond its expiration date," such as declining mission relevance, morale issues, financial problems, etc. The more aware organizations are that all things have a lifecycle - boards, staff, the nonprofit organization as a whole - the better they can prepare for change.

For example, the most challenging leadership transition in any organization is from the founder to the organization's first executive leader after the founder. This transition comes for all organizaitons, and yet, too often, it's left unspoken until things turn for the worse. This is because few organizations are able to overcome the emotionality surrounding the transition, least of all the founders themselves. And yet, this transition is a critical one for organizations to foresee and prepare for well in advance. Just having the conversation makes a huge difference.

But, while I find the concept of leadership staff terms useful, I think that may be too prescriptive a solution given the huge range of circumstances in nonprofit organizations. One organization's appropriate executive leadership tenure will be another's stagnating yoke and yet another's "blink and you missed it" time period. For example, a mature and stable organization will likely be benefitted by longer terms for their executives than younger organizations that are growing and changing rapidly.  The bell weather then for when leadership should turn over has everything to do wtih what the nonprofit currently requires - and less to do with an arbitrary number of years. 

So, instead of prescriptive term limits for executives, I endorse that nonprofit organizations build into their planning and evaluation processes explicit conversations about this issue - and this should apply to all major executive staff, from executive director to development director, adminstrators, CFOs and program directors. Evaluation processes for these positions should be developed with criteria defined to drive optimal performance by the nonprofit - this too will change over time, and so must the evaluation process and criteria for each executive position. Bringing aboard all executive staff with full awareness of the nonprofit's values and process around leadership succession will make clear that leadership lifecycle is a reality, not personal to them, and the nonprofit is proactive in defining how it will address such predictable aspects of its business.

The biggest problem in the area of leadership succession is that too many nonprofits just plain get comfortable when things are working well - the "don't rock the boat" mentality kicks in. Perhaps setting term limits would help ensure this doesn't happen. But even better is remembering that the only constant is change and having as the nonprofit's standard procedure being prepared for those changes that are predictable. Executive staff turnover is one. Not only does it make sense to plan for it, it's one of the smartest ways for the nonprofit to avoid highly charged, disruptive, and, at worst, litigious situations.