by | March 26, 2012

Innovation — Using Everyday Technology

By Amy Wagner, associate director at MAP
Just about a year ago, I started working on something I had never done before – hiring a research partner for a significant exploration of technology use for nonprofit service innovation.  MAP had received a generous gift from the ADC Foundation to research and support increased nonprofit innovation and evaluation of impact through technology.  After diving into the work, many discussions, proposals, interviews, and more discussions, we chose Idealware as our research partner. Idealware is a nonprofit located in Portland, Maine that provides research to help nonprofits make smart software decisions.  We talked with them about what we hoped the research report would show and accomplish.

We wanted to:

  • Discover and learn from Minnesota human services organizations using technology for innovation in service delivery.
  • Highlight our findings to inspire other nonprofits
  • Assimilate the findings into recommendations for nonprofits, funders and support organizations everywhere

We began the actual research seven months ago and now have a completed report – Unleashing Innovation: Using Everyday Technology to Improve Nonprofit Services. The report accomplished what we’d hoped, but in different ways than we had expected.

We had thought that we might find a few pieces of hardware or software that were responsible for the majority of innovation in service delivery. We hypothesized that organizations that were improving their service delivery through technology would be very tech savvy internally. We also thought we’d find some “jet packs” – or some really cutting edge applications of technology that were revolutionizing service delivery.

Instead what we found were lots of great examples of nonprofits successfully using technology to innovate in highly-accessible ways.  Nonprofits are using existing and accessible technology to provide higher quality services, and actually finding ways to do more with less.  One of the case studies in the report, titled “Netting Big Results through a Small Change,” describes how the Domestic Abuse Project (DAP) in Minneapolis transformed the relationship between their staff and probation officers, and improved graduation rates of their participants, through the creation of a new form on their existing database.  The key inspiration in this case came from an organization with a similar mission in another state and the only cost was the time it took for the DAP staff member to create the form.

The other surprise for us was that many of the successful innovations didn’t come about because of an in-depth planning process and they often didn’t even come for people that were very tech savvy – the ideas resulted from the recognition of a service/program problem or opportunity.

The findings should and will inspire nonprofit leaders. They are also inspiring us at MAP to think about different and better ways to help our clients recognize their service problems and opportunities first – and then bring forward the technology solutions.

This research project has been interesting, challenging, educational and fun for me – in unexpected ways.  I’m looking forward to sharing the results with others so we can all continue to learn together. You can view the full report here, or register for the free webinar we’re providing with Idealware. And stay tuned, because this research is only the first chapter of our work.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Innovation, Nonprofit Governance, Nonprofit Strategy, Nonprofit Tech - NPTech

Tagged as , , , ,

by | February 16, 2012

Is a Nonprofit Merger or Realignment in Your Future?

By Renae Oswald-Anderson and Gordon Goodwin
MAP Strategic Services

MAP’s work helping organizations with mergers, joint ventures, program transfers and dissolutions has increased dramatically in recent years.  Nonprofit mergers and joint ventures occur for many strategic benefits, stronger positioning for the future, combining strengths to build breadth or depth within one organization, going to scale. It takes guts to make changes of this order in organizations, but if considered thoughtfully, planned and implemented well, mergers may offer numerous benefits to nonprofit missions, programs, and communities.

Some of our work is with organizations in a state of urgency, due to financial crisis.  Although an ‘appropriate sense of urgency’ helps mergers move forward, a ‘financial emergency’ creates additional challenges.

Based on our experience, here are a few things we would like boards of directors and agencies to know about mergers.

1. Take action sooner rather than later if your financial situation is a key factor. In nearly every rescue merger or emergency program transfer in which we’ve participated, the organization’s leadership had ample warning that things were not going well fiscally or programmatically. But many delayed acting on that warning, to the point of emergency. We help organizations in this situation, but it’s not ideal. We encourage boards and leaders to start exploring external options to preserve services for the community while there’s still time to carefully consider a full range of solutions. If you decide a merger is in the best interests of your mission and community, it’s better to have at  least six months to do it well.

2. Know your assets. If you’re going to pursue a strategic partnership, you need to know and be able to talk about what you do well and what you don’t do well.

3. Communicate like never before. Successful mergers and program transfers require successful communication. You are likely to face community perceptions of ownership, as well as numerous stakeholders that need to be consulted, including funders, program staff and allied agencies. The board and staff rely on the CEO to help them interpret how the environment is changing, and what the change means for the agency and its mission. The CEO’s role is to interpret and assess the opportunity or threat the agency is facing. The CEO must then help the board and staff members understand their roles and coordinate their efforts to ensure that essential services remain in the community. This is different from ensuring that the agency survives.

4. Anticipate control issues; acknowledge emotions.

When exploring a program transfer or a merger with another organization – a lot of “control” dynamics and emotions pop up. Leaders may need to shift their thinking from ‘what’s best for the organization’ to ‘what’s needed to preserve important community services.’  Emotions accompany the control dynamics.  The emotions are real, and deserve acknowledgement and attentiveness. There’s the fear of being gobbled up and assimilated by a larger agency, fears of lost programs, lost jobs and forgotten accomplishments. Executives and board members may experience feelings of shame, anger, denial, grief and failure when they consider the prospect of going out of business. Under-estimating the value of ritualistic closure makes transitions more difficult. If a program transfer must occur to ensure that services are maintained for your community, identifying a program recipient who will commit to continuing delivery of these services is a victory!

Remember – It’s not about the organization; it’s about who we serve.

MAP  ReDesign services include:

  • Consultation and tools for nonprofit organizations to consider a continuum of options such as merger, program transfer, joint ventures or parent-subsidiary relationships.
  • Resources and support to help organizations evaluate options, identify opportunities, communicate and make decisions throughout the realignment process and implementation.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Nonprofit Governance, Nonprofit Leadership, Nonprofit Management, Nonprofit Mergers, Nonprofit Strategy

by | January 4, 2012

New Year’s Resolutions Aren’t a Bunch of Hooey

I’ve never been much good at personal resolutions; so much so that I’ve mostly quit making them. Yet they seem to lurk in a corner of my soul and find a way to surface in my life over and over during each and every year. Surprisingly, it turns out that New Year’s resolutions aren’t really a bunch of hooey. Quite the opposite – the experts say you may be ten times more likely to succeed in your goal if you make a resolution.*

So there may be some hidden potential in making New Year’s resolutions for your nonprofit organization. We can start by taking stock with our staffs and Boards; honestly assessing the strategic and financial health of our organizations. How did 2011 end up? Are we making the difference that we aim to make?  Is there a different way to do our work that is more powerful? What do we need to change to set a course for greater impact in 2012?

Strategy Aerobics

Is your organization trying to do too much? Is the flurry of activity hiding your real assets, or distracting you from your top priorities? Is this the year you need to narrow the focus on your key strategies? Do you have the right partners? Would a strategy coach or a disciplined process help you find your direction?

Lean and Achievable Budgets

Did you set an achievable budget for 2012? We all know the temptation to round up the foundation or individual contribution revenue line item. It looks good when the budget goes to the Board, but if you truly don’t have a realistic plan to achieve that revenue budget, you’ll end up needing to cut something later in the year to avoid a negative outcome. In fact, consistently landing in the “red” is life threatening for a nonprofit.

Fiscal Fitness

Is your nonprofit fiscally healthy? Do you have the endurance that is likely to be needed and tested in the coming year? Have you charted your cash flow for the year? Are you prepared in case you need outside financing? How do your financial practices and systems look in the mirror? Do they reflect good habits – or bad habits? Nonprofits Assistance Fund offers great templates and classes for your improvement. MAP can help with financial systems reviews, 990s, and ongoing accounting and financial needs.

Accountability

Take a trip through the Charity Review Council’s Accountability Wizard. It will help you to engage your Board and staff to create a shared culture of accountability and transparency; align your practices and procedures with accountability standards and maybe even earn a “Good Housekeeping” – make that a “Meets Standards” seal of approval.

Commitment to Excellence

Challenge your organization by reviewing the Minnesota Council of Nonprofits’ Principles and Practices for Nonprofit Excellence. Consider taking your staff and Board through the self-assessment. Maybe you’re ready to tackle some of the areas where your organization falls short. Or maybe you’re ready to apply for the Nonprofit Excellence Awards.

So, if you’re like me and resolutions aren’t on your personal agenda, perhaps you can use resolutions to propel your organization into a brighter future.  Can it hurt to try?

* Psychology Today, Dec. 21, 2009

Leave a Comment

Filed under Nonprofit Accounting Practices, Nonprofit Governance, Nonprofit Leadership, Nonprofit Management, Nonprofit Strategy

Tagged as , ,

by | November 30, 2011

Learning about Leadership: 21st Century, Decade Two

By: Christine Hammes, director of strategic development services at MAP

The systems, institutions, and processes inherited from the 20th century—government and foundations as reliable resource streams for nonprofits, for instance—are not working today. We know this. We just don’t yet know precisely what will replace them.

Example: Many workplaces have downsized, consolidated or employed other means of economizing. Workers must learn new skills, experiment with different processes for getting work done, and often make these leaps for less pay, less security, and with less help than when their jobs were more predictable.

How are we to lead in such an environment?

The kind of leadership (and the kind of learning about leadership) required by the sweeping and uncertain change of today must be both broad and deep.

Broader in that leadership today is about mobilizing oneself and others to tackle tough issues and exciting challenges. Such leadership can and should take place anywhere in the system—whether by persons in positions of authority or those possessing initiative for the greater good regardless of their position.

Learning to do this leadership takes practice. Working with groups, across boundaries, cultivating the leadership of others, inviting difference, becoming adept as a group at spotting “bright spots”) and finally learning from the doing by reflecting on what you did. Ask yourselves “How well did our meeting today serve our common purpose?” Practice. Experiment. Reflect. Build on what works.

Deeper in that such leadership requires a kind of learning beyond that required to master technical skills such as budgeting or project management. We must do the difficult and often unfamiliar job of learning about ourselves.  What are our strengths? Really. If we admire and envy the public speaking prowess of Bill Clinton, but find we are drawn more to listening, facilitating, and synthesizing, then how can we best leverage those strengths in our leadership?

Leadership in the midst of accelerating change and uncertainty must be rooted in rock solid confidence. It depends on us being able to count on ourselves so deeply that the “self” virtually disappears. We have gotten out of our own way. We are fully present to others and able to think clearly, feel genuinely, and make decisions informed by both facts and values.

This takes practice and reflection—time by ourselves and time with others—whether in the moment of your work, off by yourself with a journal, or in the company of trusted peers. This is the kind of investment that builds truly transformative leaders.

3 Comments

Filed under Leadership Development, Nonprofit Leadership, Nonprofit Management

Tagged as , , , , , ,

by | October 3, 2011

Use Technology for Innovation in Human Service Delivery

By Amy Wagner of MAP and Laura Quinn of Idealware

MAP is working on an exciting research project to pave the way for nonprofits to use technology for service innovation in a manner that advances their missions. Our partner in this work is Idealware, a nonprofit that helps other nonprofits make smart software decisions.

We’re embarking on some detailed research, including a survey, interviews and in-depth case studies to understand how human service organizations are using technology to innovate and improve their service delivery — and the factors that help them succeed in this area.

Just from our background research, it’s clear that organizations are doing really interesting things.  Many of them, in fact, aren’t particularly expensive to implement.  For instance:

  • Food shelves are using ID cards with a bar code to quickly check people in and out.
  • Caseworkers in the field are entering case notes via laptop, PDA, smart phone, or even by calling a service that will then transcribe the notes.
  • Homeless shelters are using service data to identify homeless clients who could be served more cost effectively by simply renting them an apartment.
  • Organizations serving similar communities are coming together to agree on shared indicators and then pooling their data to understand and improve all of their services.
  • Children in foster care are “virtually visiting” with their caseworker via Skype.
  • Homebound seniors are using the internet to connect to each other and their doctors — supporting their ability to live longer in their own homes.
  • Legal service organizations are producing and sharing videos to help inform clients about important topics.
  • Organizations are using social media and online outreach methods to recruit more foster parents.

We’re excited to continue our research – especially to identify approaches, examples and tools that are straightforward to implement and likely to be effective for many different organizations.

This research was made possible by a generous contribution from the ADC Foundation.  We expect to release the complete results of our work in early 2011.

1 Comment

Filed under Innovation, Nonprofit Leadership, Nonprofit Management, Nonprofit Strategy, Nonprofit Tech - NPTech

Tagged as , , , ,

by | August 30, 2011

What Stands Between Boards and Evaluating Executive Directors?

I’ve never much liked performance appraisals. They bring out the worst of my perfectionism as I evaluate each and every comment for the slightest hints that I am not achieving all that I could achieve. Nonetheless, my board and I are meticulous in completing my performance review each year. After all, it is their job to monitor my performance and help me to improve and it is my job to know their perspective and work with them to keep getting better as an executive director.

Despite my loathing of performance appraisals, I find it incomprehensible that 45 percent of nonprofit executives did not have one last year. (Daring to Lead 2011)

Here is what I think stands between boards and evaluations:

1. Executives aren’t demanding evaluations from their boards. Perhaps they fear the criticism, however, evaluations are more than that. They’re also about what an executive is doing right, and what is most valued by the board. They provide important insight for the executive. And if the board has some criticism – isn’t it preferable to learn it sooner rather than later?

Learning about board concerns later may be too late…The Daring to Lead research noted that 33 percent of current executives followed a leader who was fired or forced to resign, indicating the frequency of  poor hires, unclear expectations and poor communications between boards and executives.  Do we really have the resources to use on this high percentage of unhappy endings?  I suspect that better performance by boards, clear expectations and regular evaluations would lower the percentage of leaders fired or forced to resign.

2. Boards are reluctant to assume the role of evaluator.  Perhaps, as volunteers, they are uncomfortable judging the executive and presuming to have guidance for the executive, who is much more closely involved in the organization than the voluntary board member. That said, boards are assigned this role and if they aren’t providing an executive evaluation – they deserve their own poor evaluation.

As an executive director of a nonprofit management consulting organization, I’ve seen many examples of executives and boards getting off track. It happens easily and often. I’ve also observed the costs incurred by derailments. (The costs to progress, the costs to relationship-building, the costs of severance, recruitment, onboarding…) It’s imperative that executives move forward in tandem with their boards – in order to move forward at all.

Executives need to make sure their boards understand their role of evaluating the executive. They should schedule and facilitate their own evaluations, as needed. Boards need to invest in helping their executives develop, grow, change and work to be the best they can be.

Finally, an emerging trend in the for-profit world is eliminating formal performance appraisals and replacing them with something more like quarterly fireside chats. These are intentional but a bit less formal conversations about how things are going.  If executives and boards can’t find their way clear to an annual review, they should at least make sure they’re giving and receiving regular documented feedback. The executive’s job may depend on it.

Resources for Nonprofits

Executive Director Evaluation Template (MAP for Nonprofits)

Accountability standard on Chief Executive Assessment and Compensation (Charities Review Council)

Conducting Executive Director Performance Evaluations (Minnesota Council of Nonprofits)

Why is Chief Executive Performance Evaluation Necessary? (BoardSource)

Leave a Comment

Filed under Leadership Development, Nonprofit Governance, Nonprofit Leadership

Tagged as , , , , ,

by | July 11, 2011

Welcome to Mileposts (for Nonprofits)

Mileposts provide reference points along the road. They reassure us – the wheels aren’t just turning, they’re taking us to the destination we seek; the hours aren’t just disappearing, they’re being put to the right use — moving us forward.

Mileposts are useful. That’s our aim with this blog.

MAP recently served as a regional partner in a national study of nonprofit executive leadership called Daring to Lead 2011.  The findings identify new directions and will provide mileposts to mark our progress.

In this post, I want to share how Minnesota data compare to the national data featured in the Daring to Lead report.  The national study included 3,000 nonprofit executives, 225 of whom were from this region.

Fair warning: Our partners and the sponsors of the study, CompassPoint Nonprofit Services and the Meyer Foundation, report that there were no areas of statistically significant differences between regional and national data. (I still believe the data will be of interest to Minnesota nonprofit and foundation leaders.)

Daring to Lead clearly pertains to MAP’s ongoing work with nonprofit leaders, board and executives, but I believe it will also interest other Minnesota organizations, as well as funders and community leaders.

Daring to Lead Selected Findings

  • Nationally, 75 percent of nonprofit executives said they plan to leave their jobs within five years; our Minnesota exodus may be a bit less –at 63 percent. (Is it an understatement to suggest this may be a great time to be an emerging leader?)
  • Nationally, a mere 17 percent of leaders said their organizations have documented succession plans; locally we’re not much better, at 21 percent.  (This is a call to action in case you’re wondering what to do after the effects of the state government shutdown subside.)
  • Nationally, 45 percent of executives said they did not receive a performance evaluation last year; in Minnesota, 37 percent went without. (This isn’t a passing grade in case you’re wondering.)
  • At the national level, 33 percent of executives said they followed a leader who was fired or forced to resign; in Minnesota, 22 percent in after this unfortunate occurrence.  (This surprised me and made me wonder what the figure would be for for-profit executives.) If we improve the prevalence of succession planning, searching, hiring, onboarding and helping leaders to develop, and providing them with regular feedback (evaluations) — we would improve this percentage.
  • Nationally, 84 percent leaders say their organizations have been negatively affected by the recession; in Minnesota, it’s 82 percent. (Staggering, but probably comparable to what families and many businesses would report.)
  • Nationally, 32 percent of nonprofit boards are participating in policy advocacy; in Minnesota, it’s 35 percent.
  • And finally – of nonprofits where government contracts make up the majority of their annual budgets, nationally, 55 percent have less than three months of operating reserve; in Minnesota, it’s 56 percent. (This survey preceded our state budget shutdown in Minnesota; for those affected, the reserves are likely to have shrunk.)

Each of the Daring to Lead 2011 findings shared here, as well as others, could easily provoke a blog on its own accord.  Until next time…

Judy Alnes
Executive Director
MAP for Nonprofits

P.S. More Daring to Lead results here.

MAP logo

Leave a Comment

Filed under Innovation, Leadership Development, Nonprofit Governance, Nonprofit Leadership, Nonprofit Management, Nonprofit Strategy

Tagged as