Is LinkedIn really worthwhile? I recently was part of a discussion about which social media tools an organization should participate in. LinkedIn was brought up as a suggested social media tool for the organization to participate in. The first thing I thought was “Why”? I see the value of LinkedIn for personal profiles, but unless your organization has paid staff members whose sole job is to focus on social media – it’s not the best tool to be focusing on.

When I’m on LinkedIn I’m looking for individuals to work with on projects and from conversations I’ve had, others seem to be using it in the same manner (to build professional relationships). I’m not really paying attention to what volunteer work someone has done, nor am I worried about the “causes” listed in my profile. Also, I have not seen any case studies of nonprofits that have used LinkedIn and found it to be effective in bringing in additional donations, volunteers, etc (if you know of one, please post in comments!).

With that being said, it’s not a complete waste of time. If your nonprofit has the time and resources for LinkedIn, there are two things I’d recommend using it for:

1) Claim your page. You don’t need to monitor it – you don’t even need to look at it. Just set it up, set up the feeds, and let it sit. It won’t take any time, but people will be able to “follow” you and it will be another way people can learn about your organization.

2) Find prospects. Search keywords to find potential donors. For example, I did a quick search for “homeless” and a list came up of people in my network that had it in their profile. There were individuals that had volunteered at some point for organizations that focused on homelessness, as well as people that had worked (or currently work) for this cause.

Have you ever went in to a strategic planning meeting and thought to yourself, “What a waste of time!” I know I have. It’s not because strategic plans are a waste of time – it’s because most nonprofit strategic plans don’t ever get looked at or used, leaving those involved feeling disgruntled about the planning process. A strategic plan should be a living document that is used at monthly meetings to track progress on goals and to ensure the organization stays focused.

Most people are quick to say every nonprofit should have a strategic plan. I don’t agree. While strategic plans are helpful and worthwhile, if they aren’t used in the right away – or if an organization simply doesn’t have the capacity to develop and keep up on a strategic plan, then they can be a waste of time for all involved. I don’t think every nonprofit must have a strategic plan. In fact, I would argue all nonprofits already have a simple, straightforward strategic plan in their mission statement. Look at Pet Haven Inc of Minnesota’s (Disclosure, I’m on their board) mission statement. It says what their goal is and what they are doing to get there. These are the two fundamental components of any strategic plan 1) Where you want to be 2) How you are going to get there.

So, the next time your organization gets ready to develop a strategic plan, ask a three important questions:

1. Why are we putting together a formal strategic plan?
2. Do we have one already? Have we followed it? Have we looked at it in the past 3 years since we developed it?
3. What structure are we going to create to ensure this document is actually used and meaningful for our organization?

Here’s a helpful tip on using SWOT analysis for developing strategic plans.

Photo Credit: Alper Cugun

Minnesota nice is seemingly alive and well in nonprofit blogging. Rarely do you come across critical  posts on the sector. That’s why I was intrigued when I came across the post “Nonprofits need to get it together” by Inside Philanthropy. The post cites the 2012 State of the Sector Survey – Nonprofit Finance Fund to discuss several facts that cause the author to conclude that “A lot of nonprofits, boards and funders are in serious denial.”

While things aren’t exactly puppies and rainbows in nonprofit land right now, I definitely feel like this post was a bit of a mis-characterization of how things are. The two things I take most issues with in this post are:

1. “Nonprofits need to get it together”: This statement coupled with the blog author’s use of facts about nonprofits inability to meet demand, suggests that nonprofits (not foundations, not the government, not people) are doing something wrong. They don’t have it together right now and that is why they aren’t meeting demand. I just simply don’t agree. As the study suggests, many nonprofits experienced significant increases in demand. With funding already tight – how are they supposed to plan for a guesstimate that demand just might increase? Many are struggling to continue programs at their current level – much less securing additional funding for an unknown number of possible people. And I’d like to point out, I think it’s rash to suggest nonprofits are at blame for this. Nonprofits aren’t responsible for people losing their jobs and needing more assistance. Most “have it together” they just need more money – just like every other nonprofit.
2. “For their part, boards need to take their governance and fundraising responsibilities seriously.” The post talks about board members heads being in the stand and board members “rubber stamp” everything staff give them without asking questions. As a board member of several boards, I take offense at this generalization. The vast majority of board members do take their responsibilities seriously. In fact, the very survey this author cites shows that 88% of boards give to the organization. Granted, some staff feel the amount was “not enough” – but maybe those board members can’t afford to give more or give their time. Should we alienate those of lower incomes and not allow them on boards because they aren’t giving “enough”? Isn’t giving time important too? The Nonprofit Research Collaborative’s 2011 (2012 survey is open right now) survey found that 91% of respondents used board giving to raise money and 42% said board giving increased in past year. Not exactly the doom and gloom picture painted by this post.

Although Inside Philanthropy has chosen to take the 2012 State of the Sector survey to be terrible news, let’s keep in mind that the survey notes that “There are small signs of greater financial stability this year, surprising in light of the seemingly ubiquitous funding cuts.”

What do you think – is your nonprofit/foundation in “denial”?

Photo Credit: YardsaleDan

I was killing time last Sunday night before I headed to bed and came across the post “3 questions your donors are asking.” The three questions from Pamela’s post were:

1. Do you have a strategic plan?
2. Do you have 100% board giving?
3. What are your outcomes?  Where’s your impact?

This got me thinking about whether I had asked these before about the organizations I have donated to. I haven’t ever asked if a nonprofit has a strategic plan before donating – while strategic plans can be great, they usually are dead documents that end up in drawers and are rarely public. I also don’t usually ask if 100% of the board donates – not because that isn’t important, but because I’d rather know if 100% of the board volunteers. While money is important – time is more valuable and can usually be a better indicator of whether board members truly care about the organization. Honestly, #3 is likely the only thing I actually ask about nonprofits I donate to. Maybe it’s my evaluation background, but I want to know about their impact and how specifically they are doing the work. The above three questions were suggested by a foundation president, which isn’t surprising because foundations are much more likely to ask these.

I’d say my three questions are:

1. What exactly does the organization do – and do they do it the best?
2. How much of my money actually goes towards the mission (is it some multi-level ginormous nonprofit with a small program-expense ratio?)?
3. What relationship do I have with the organization?

#3 is mainly because I always support the organizations I volunteer with or serve on the board of because those are usually the organizations I feel most passionate about. I think there is definitely a disconnect between what people feel they should be asking compared with what they really want to know. What questions do you ask when choosing what organization to donate to?

Photo credit: Marynbtol

Every nonprofit’s goal should be to put itself out of business. Can you imagine? A world where no one needs a homeless shelter, where the environment is protected by everyone, where everyone has access to water, where these issues have been overcome. To take one huge step in this direction, we need to take a hard look at our programs. Are they truly addressing the root causes – or are they only addressing immediate needs?

Obviously addressing immediate needs are important – but they aren’t going to have the long-term impact needed to make your nonprofit unnecessary. Charity : Water is an excellent example of a nonprofit that has change-oriented programs. Instead of giving people water they are creating lasting change. They build wells. Not only do they build wells but they work to make sure that the clean water continues flowing over time. They create water committees in the community, train them on proper sanitation (hand washing, latrines, etc), and fund maintenance programs to keep the wells working. They partner to train mechanics in the community who can keep the wells going. They truly take a change-oriented approach.

The next time your staff sit down to discuss your programs, start a discussion about whether the program is a band-aid or a long-term solution.

Photo Credit: Esther Havens

Every nonprofit’s goal should be to put itself out of business. Can you imagine? A world where no one needs a homeless shelter, where the environment is protected by everyone, where everyone has access to water, where these issues have been overcome.  When designing programs and initiatives this simple fact should be kept in mind. How exactly can we get there? How can we make our nonprofit unnecessary? Check back tomorrow for my post on Change-Oriented Programs – a vital component to making a meaningful difference.

Photo Credit: Cougar Studio

Have you ever had a funder require 100% board giving to get a grant? I’ve been seeing this more and more lately. While I understand the rationale (why would a foundation give if your own board isn’t giving) – I’m not sure if it’s the right question to be asking. The foundation is assuming that money = increased commitment to nonprofit – which isn’t always true. I’m sure most of us can think of at least one person that you have served on a board with – or serves on your nonprofit’s board that is not really passionate about your work. They may give hundreds or thousands of dollars a year – but just feel lukewarm about the mission. Maybe they are on the board as a resume booster or for networking. Nonetheless, their donation isn’t an indicator that they care. I’ve even heard of people “buying” board of director’s positions.

I think a better question for foundations is: Do your board members volunteer/attend events outside of the board/committee meetings? If I truly care about an organization, I’m going to give up my time to help the organization succeed. It’s easy and quick to write a check – but it’s not so easy to give up an afternoon volunteering. What would your organization rather have, a board member that hosts house parties, writes letters to their friends asking for donations, and attends your big fundraiser – or a board member that writes you a $100 check?

Photo Credit: Steve Calcott

Does your organization have program materials translated into another language? Many don’t – and many don’t need to. It depends heavily on your mission, programs, and area of service. Some organizations not only  have materials available in other languages but they also provide their programing in other languages. If you have had a few people contact your organization in the past year that do not speak English (think of how many didn’t bother because they don’t speak English!), then you might want to consider doing one of the following (or both):

1. Develop a partnership with a translator: Many cities have translators on staff and are happy to help if you need it. Developing this relationship in advance saves time and makes things move smoothly when helping those that do not speak English.
2. Get some (or all) relevant program materials translated: While this might sound like a costly task, it doesn’t have to be. Many nonprofits that are community-specific are happy to help by either translating or reviewing your translation. One thing I’ve done previously is used Bing or Google’s translation websites (free!) to translate documents. Then I have a community partner review the translation for accuracy and cultural nuances. I’ve found Google’s site to be pretty accurate for Spanish. Note: Neither can do translation into Somal

Anyone know of a free online translation source for English to Somali?

Photo Credit: Kelly Criscuolo-DeButts

As I mentioned on Monday, last week I highlighted a few of the problems with the Nonprofit Social Network Benchmark Reports. Annaliese Hoehling, Publications Director for NTEN, and Jeff Patrick, President of Common Knowledge, were kind enough to answer a few of the questions I had posed about their report. I discussed their responses to my questions about the methodology on Monday. Unfortunately, after emailing back and forth a couple times, Patrick has not shared how exactly they conducted the data analysis (one of the questions I had about the report). So, to wrap up my critical look at the 2012 Nonprofit Social Network Benchmark Report, here is the responses to my remaining questions:

Problem 3: Nonprofit annual budget categories need adjustment

The current list of budget categories does not appropriately reflect nonprofits in the U.S. As I discussed earlier this week, Hoehling shared that “about 75% of US nonprofits report annual revenue less than $1M” and over the past 4 years, 40 – 46% of their respondents have been nonprofits with annual budgets less than $1 million. Knowingly this, it should be obvious that the categories for budget should include several options under $1 million (less than $250,000, $250,000-$499,999, $500,000 – $749,999, and $750,000 – $999,999). The current options also have overlap (read my previous post for more discussion on these issues).

In response to this, Hoehling shared:

“We realize that the general nonprofit sector in the US has a make-up different than the budget breakdown we provided (with about 75% of US nonprofits reporting annual revenue less than $1M), which is another reason we make sure that readers understand that the survey respondents don’t necessarily reflect the general nonprofit sector — we’re interested in learning about practices that lead to success for nonprofits advocating and fundraising on social networks, rather than a “state of” social media use in the nonprofit sector.”

Patrick also responded to this question and said:

“That’s always a hot debate for this survey.  We address such a wide range of groups that breaking it out into even more tiers creates a really BIG list, which in turn is overwhelming for respondents.  Second, for our purposes, I’m not sure there is significant behavioral differences between $250K vs $1million.”

I was very surprised to hear Patrick say he wasn’t sure there would be significant differences between nonprofits under $1 million – I was surprised because I know there are differences, which is why this was a problem in the first place. Here was my response to him:

I understand wanting to avoid more options – but in this case I think you would find it useful. While it’s easy to think there wouldn’t be differences between orgs under $1 million, I have found there is, in fact, notable differences. In the statewide survey I conducted in Minnesota (about 650 respondents) on social media use and evaluation (conducted Fall of 2010), I found several interesting differences between those with budgets of less than $250k and those with $500k – $1 million budgets. Here are just a few of the things there were different about those groups:

• Nonprofits with budgets of under $250k (27.7%) were twice as likely orgs with budgets of $500-$1 mil (12.3%) to have zero staff dedicated to social media.
• Nonprofits with budgets under $250k (32.1%) were much less likely to have “Reallocated money from other part of organization (not programming)” to pay for it’s social media work than $500k-$1 mil orgs (50%)
• More nonprofits with large budgets ($500k – $1 mil, 44.6%) plan to increase spending on social media more frequently than those with under $250k in annual budgets (33.7%)
• There were notable differences in the type of social media used. For example, only 31.3% of under $250k orgs used YouTube – but 55.4% of $500k-$1m orgs used YouTube.

There were several other differences between the groups in terms of their evaluation of their social media efforts. I’m hoping that next year you will break out this category a bit. I’d also recommend adding geographic location as a survey question.

Patrick did not respond any further to this point.

Problem 4: Seemingly elementary data analysis

My final problem with the report was that there seemed to be very little data analysis done. All that was really reported was means (very basic data analysis). I expected that they would have done some sort of test for differences (i.e. Chi-Square, etc) similar to the 2010 Nonprofit Fundraising Survey by The Nonprofit Research Collaborative. When I asked Patrick about this, his response was:

“We did a variety of data validation and testing of our data.  When you say “Differences in the data” – what exactly are you referencing?”

I responded to him explaining what I meant (Chi-Square, etc) but he has not responded (I have emailed him 3 times about this now). I’m not sure what that means (if anything), so I just hope that next year they include a sentence or two in their report sharing what type of data analysis was done.

Enjoy this post? Read about Problem #1, Problem #2, Problem #3, Problem #4, and Part 1 of the official response from NTEN/Common Knowledge.

Photo Credit: Ali Catterall

When you make a $100 donation to your favorite nonprofit, how much do you think actually is going towards its cause? I think most people just assume that most (at least half) is going towards the mission. That’s why I was pretty surprised when I stumbled across Charity Navigator’s list of “10 Charities Overpaying their For-Profit Fundraisers.” This list has 10 organizations that pay less than 20% of their budget towards programs and services. Shockingly, 7 of the 10 actually have less than 10% going towards programs/services. The worst offenders are:

• Disabled Police Officers Counseling Center (7.5%)
• Firefighters Charitable Foundation (7.7%)
• Children’s Charity Fund, Inc. (8.1%)

My first thought was that these organizations must be small (like $100k budget) or brand new and that was why they aren’t spending more on their mission. Unfortunately, that was not the case. All three organizations are around 20 years old – and two of the three have budgets over $1 million. What’s really crazy is what these three nonprofits are spending over 80% of their budgets on – professional fundraising “fees” (aka fundraising consultants).

Since the Firefighters Charitable Foundation took in the most money ($6.1 million) I pulled up their 2010 990 to see if this was really true, and it is. The Firefighters Charitable Foundation – whose work includes helping those affected by fires, is actually paying fundraising consultants 87% of all donations they took in – $5.3 million dollars in 2010.  Maybe it’s just me, but that seems totally wrong. What do you think?

Photo Credit: Keith Ramsey