Moving for What Matters

Oppression reinvents itself and creeps its way into every facet of our human existence which means the act of devaluing of ‘others’’ lives gets harder and harder to spot if you’re not aware of our history in the US. Diversity encompasses all identities and forms of human experience including, but not limited to, race, ethnicity, religion, ability status, LGBTQ identity, age, gender identity, and language. I won’t be able to tackle all identities in one post, so I will address race and LGBTQ identity.

Diversity: Were All in this Together

The Value of Diversity

Collaboration

Collaborations have become a “hallmark” of a more “future focused nonprofit” filled with benefits and risks(3) . Some reasons for sector collaborations are: “a mutual benefit to achieve common or joint goals for self (organization), community, or both; pressure from funding sources due to a potential challenge or threat; to reduce conflicts by squarely addressing issues of competition and “turf(3).;  or utilized to proactively address an emerging community issue (3).

• Non-Profit & Government:

Case: Department of Social Service(DSS)and La Alianza Hispana shared interest in education, job training, and health services in Boston.A collaboration was a result of DSS’s increase in caseload that lead them to collaborate with La Alianza, who would provide the community ties to understand and interpret family dynamics better by focusing on issues regarding mismanagement on cultural insensitivity (4).

Issues: Government can provide the footprint but do not always fund enterprise.

If nonprofits follow government regulations and agenda, the nonprofit no longer is the third sector that tries to provide what the two sectors can’t provide, it instead becomes an extension of government services.The issues arise as: stronger regulations; mission creep; inadequate budget, resources, and services; and lack of transparent communication. Some suggestions are:  create a task force, invest in strategic planning, and increase communication with  clients or pursue a different collaboration.

Versus

• Non-Profit & Not for Profit

Similar: to serve a specific population with their collaborations. Both can provide a complementary collaboration if strategically planned.

Differ in terms of mission. Nonprofit and nonprofit  will often share missions and goals while with the NP and government collaboration, nonprofit will have to restructure to compromise to what the government collaboration can provide and under which conditions.

•  Non-Profit & For Profit

Similar in regards to mission creep and lots of compromising.

Differ in regards to the collaboration value. Often there can be a higher level of mission creep with the collaboration with the government than with for profit because of the amount of regulation the government’s collaboration can imply.  

• Non-Profit &Not for profit

Case: Seattle Art Museum and Housing coalitions collaborated for potential risk of funds but also to build community ties with regards to community diverse resources. They both wanted to enrich the community in one way or another while also obtaining the right resources or funds needed. Therefore, they collaborated to obtain a joint population vote (2).

Issues: Issues that tend to arise is the loss of autonomy and visibility. They both share an agenda to serve the same population but may differ in how they want to serve the population with regards to which services, researches, and issues they want to focus on.

Versus:

• Non-Profit & For Profit

Similar: in terms of wanting to strengthen their personal brand and possibly community ties. It can also be a strong collaboration. But can also lead to issues of mission and identity creep if there is not a balanced compromise or a strong level of shared mission. Yet, there are principles from NP organizations that can also benefit FP companies.

Differ: in terms of agenda. NP-NP share agenda and mission to serve the community or population while NP-FP will share mission but may differ in terms of agenda. NP-FP will struggle with regards to gains and resources and social responsibilities. FP often want to maintain personal brand and reputation while still obtaining financial gains. Both have personal agenda but one is for profit.

• Non-Profit & For Profit

Case :In the case of City Year and Timberland boot the collaboration began with Timberland Boot’s goal to brand the boot in connection with a core value. Throughout the years the collaboration grew through the similar stages of: climate of cooperation, group network, coordinating group, coalition, and collaboration (1).

Issues:The biggest challenge for profit and nonprofit organizational types is that congruent values can be different. Some suggestions would be focusing on relationship building, achieving greater visibility, developing a shared vision, and maintaining financial health.

Versus: (Mentioned Above)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

References:

1. Elias, J. 1996. Timberland and Community Involvement. Harvard Business School Publishing. Boston, MA.

2. Fortier, S. 1996. Funding Seattle’s Art Museum and Low-Income Housing: The Politics of Interest Groups and Tax Levies. Cascade Center for Public Service: Public Service Curriculum Exchange.

3. United Way, 2008. “Best Practices Summary: Collaboration, Coalition-Building, and Merger.”

4. Varley, P. 1996. Partners in Child Protection Services: The Department of Social Services and La Alianza Hispana.  Kennedy School of Government. Boston, MA

Collaboration Analysis

Collaborations boil down to human relationships and the mutual interactions of multiple types of those relationships. Oftentimes we get caught up in the logistics and big picture strategic planning where people end up talking about systems and not people. It is easy to lose sight of an organization’s purpose when there are different visions of the broad agenda. The NASW Code of Ethics includes six core values, including two I plan to mention throughout this assessment to demonstrate how to maintain shared focus: the importance of human relationships and competence. It is integral to an organization’s health that leaders recognize the worth of each individual and the power that is created when one can connect all of those individuals in a productive way. It is also important to recognize an organization’s limits in what services it can provide to a community and what services it cannot.

Organizational partnerships carry various challenges. Establishing trust, effective communication, having a shared vision and resources, and incorporating shared decision making and strategic planning among all parties work together to foster strong collaborations (United Way, 2008). Three separate cases are presented below: a nonprofit-nonprofit collaboration, a nonprofit-public collaboration, and a nonprofit-private collaboration.

The Collaboration Sensation: How to Create Successful Partnerships

            As technological advances and economic changes blur the boundaries between our societies traditional sectors, the importance of collaboration to the nonprofit industry continues to grow. Successful collaboration can offer many benefits; however, these partnerships also come with a significant set of challenges. A strong relationship relies on many factors: establishing trust, effective communication, having a shared vision and resources, and incorporating shared decision making and strategic planning amongst all parties (United Way, 2008).

            A well-functioning partnership will include many of these, and missing even one or two aspects can result in significant roadblocks. Unique challenges as well as opportunities may also exist depending on the collaboration in question. Below we will look at three different cases: a nonprofit-nonprofit collaboration, a nonprofit-public collaboration, and a nonprofit-private collaboration. Together these cases offer insight into how collaborations can succeed as well as how they can fail.

1.)   The Seattle Art Museum (SAM) and First Things First (FTF)

These two seemingly dissimilar Seattle based nonprofits formed a coalition in order to increase their chances of receiving funding via a tax levy referendum that was being held in the city. The collaboration was advantageous due to the fact that each side could bring unique resources to the table. The museum held significant political capital, while First Things First provided a large volunteer base. Due to the substantial differences in both the mission and constituencies of these two organizations however, there was a significant cultural gap to be overcome. The partnership encountered problems stemming from a lack of trust and mutual respect. Due to ineffective communication the roles of each group were not properly understood by stakeholders (Electronic Hallway, 1996). This highlights the importance of strategic planning and open communication on both sides of the partnership, especially when the collaborators come from vastly different backgrounds.

2.)   The Massachusetts Department of Social Services (DSS) and La Alianza Hispana

This was an an example of a potential collaboration between the nonprofit and public sector. DSS was looking to improve its reputation and credibility among the Hispanic community in Boston. They sought out a partnership with La Alianza, an organization with deep roots in the city’s Hispanic community. DSS could benefit from La Alianza’s cultural knowledge and positive reputation, while also providing the organization with funding and other valuable resources that could be of assistance to a nonprofit. Although each side had similar concerns the collaboration was unbalanced. There was an absence of shared stake in the partnership by both agencies, as well as a shared decision making model (Fortier, 1996). Once again the value of communication and creating a collaborative environment can be seen in this case.

3.)   Timberland Shoe Company and City Year

The final case presents us with an example of a nonprofit-private collaboration. Jeffrey Shwartz, the COO of Timberland, had always dreamed of giving back to his community. So when officials from the nonprofit City Year sought the company’s assistance, he jumped at the chance to create a partnership. City Year benefitted through an increase in resources brought about by Timberlands donations, as well as the higher visibility achieved through collaborative projects such as the creation “City Year Gear” (Elias, 1996). For Timberland, the partnership offered the company a chance to improve its brand image. Consumers increasingly viewed Timberland as a responsible corporation dedicated to community service, which had positive effects on both sales and profits. The collaboration faced difficulties in 1995 due to the financial hardships of both organizations. In this case, a failure to strategically plan and identify external threats hurt both sides and ultimately weakened the collaboration.

The above examples allow us to examine how collaborations may present different benefits as well as challenges across the three sectors. Ultimately there is no single formula for a successful collaboration. That being said, establishing a strong relationship built on trust and communication, as well as utilizing strategic planning, can go a long way towards ensuring an advantageous partnership for both sides.

Sources:

Elias, J. 1996. Timberland and Community Involvement. Supervisor James Austin. Harvard Business School Publishing. Boston, MA.

Fortier, S. 1996. Funding Seattle’s Art Museum and Low-Income Housing: The Politics of Interest Groups and Tax Levies (A). Supervisor Jon Brock. Cascade Center for Public Service: Public Service Curriculum Exchange.

United Way. 2008. “Best Practices Summary: Collaboration, Coalition-Building, and Merger.”

Varley, P. 1996. Partners in Child Protection Services: The Department of Social Services and La Alianza Hispana (A). Abridged. Kennedy School of Government. Boston, MA

Strategic Planning

Strategic Planning

The inescapable nature of constant change among human service organizations:

        Effectively managing and leading a non-profit organization often involves embracing change to try to serve the fluctuating needs and demands of the community regarding public needs, funding, services, social issues/trends, social political environment, and goals. However, how the agency chooses to embark and navigate the constant journey of change can impact the agency’s readiness and survivorship ability. Although change can be both an opportunity and or a threat, agencies have recognized that the  influx of change can pose an impact on  their organization’s overall survivorship; therefore, many have begun to invest in embracing and addressing change through a process known as strategic planning.This involves exploring 'organizational strategy, structure, and process in an “adaptive cycle” or strategic management cycle, in which service and opportunities, delivery systems and capabilities, and performance and control all  consider the nature of the external environment but are internally driven by the mission and values of the agency. '

Case: 2V/ACT: Planning for Change and Determining Relevance:

Seattle Youth Involvement Network (SYIN)’s plan for change  is a great example of when strategic planning can be a vital part of embarking  an ‘ambitious plan to become a statewide organization dedicated to promoting youth involvement in democracy while developing their new identity as as 2V/ACT.' The organization began to plan for change after a decade, by reevaluating the purpose of their organization.  

Benefits of Strategic Planning: Establishments like SYIN benefit from strategic planning as  it provides the agency a process to reorganize, reevaluate their purpose, learn about the challenges, plan for the change, and focus on goals and objectives to establish and change decision criteria.  

Process and steps: In this case, 2V/ACT sought to pursue strategic planning  by investing on a 6-step process:

1. Getting organized

In 2003 SYIN decided to establish a strategic planning committee for a ten-month period to reevaluate their goals set with the purpose to create a new mission, streamline programming, and improve fund raising and public relations with a focus on including a situational.

2. Conducting a situational analysis

SYIN’s board and staff came together together to assess their strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats.

3. Re-Developing a mission statement

SYIN redeveloped their mission statement to reflect their role in the community “we educate,empower and engage Washington youth in the democratic process to encourage youth voice and promote lifetime of participation in their communities”

4. Asking fundamental questions

The committee evaluated current and future challenges in areas of funding and capacity challenges along with vital considerations regarding the level of work of 2V/ACT.

5. Examining critical issues

The committee examined many of the critical issues such as funding and capacity.

6. Drafting Strategic Plan

The committee started drafting the plan by discussing:

• Mission statement
• Vision of the organization in 4 years

• Goals to be accomplished in 4 years
• Critical issues
• Key realities
• Internal /external assessment
• Actions for each critical issue
• Accountability and time table for each critical issue

• This 6-step process allowed for developing a plan that would reflect the community’s needs.

The crucial elements of strategic planning

Organizing, assessing, and implementing  are crucial elements of strategic planning, these  allow an agency to develop a plan that would enable their ability to survive through change.Strategic planning is a way of ‘developing a competitor focus at every level through use of intelligence to improve existing skills and learn new ones.’

Brody, Ralph, and Murali, Nair (2005) Effectively Managing Human Service Organizations, Third Edition, Sage Publications

Bryson, John & Renz, David. The Jossey-Bass handbook of nonprofit leadership and management, Chapter 8.

Hamel and Prahalad (1989) Strategic Intent