Why we should care about rapidly changing diversity

 

            When we talk about rapidly changing demographics what we are talking about is our nation and communities becoming more diverse. With this in mind, first let’s define diversity. According to McNett in Diversity in the Workplace: Ethics or Pragmatism or Some of Both, “By diversity we mean valuing, respecting, and appreciating the differences (such as age, culture, education, ethnicity, experience, gender, race, religion, and sexual orientation, among others) that make people unique.”

            Why should we care about this rapid change in diversity? Here in Dane County (and the rest of the country) we do not have strong track record of supporting diversity. According to Race to Equity[1] a report on Dane County, 75% of black children live in poverty compared to 5% of white children.  48% of black children in 3^rd grade are not proficient in reading compared to 11% of white children. Juvenile arrest rates are six times higher for black children than white. Sadly these inequities are not isolated to our county and state. New York Times recently published an article “1.5 Million Missing Black Men” about the disproportionate number of black men in our country who are in jail. As our county becomes more diverse these statistics will become even more staggering if we do not do something.

            These statistics point to the institutional racism that exists in every community in America. It is a sickness that many pretended was cured until the media picked up on these staggering statistics of inequity, pointing to the two America’s we live in. Here in Madison, many found out about our own institutionalized racism as we read Race to Equity. Many others already knew what the report said and didn’t need a study to prove to them what they saw and lived. 

            Then Tony Robinson was killed. Another shooting of a black man by a white police officer. Falling inline with an ever growing list of horrors, growing numbers of dead black individuals that plaster our newspapers each day and each week. Confronted with the growing number of lost lives is paralyzing.

            What can we do as leaders? We can listen. We can acknowledge that we are scared. We can acknowledge that we are often wrong. We can remember are only one view point. We can bring together leaders from all of our communities in Dane County and keep listening. We can step aside knowing that there are more important voices than ours or we can speak out louder and demand to be heard. We can work to correct the education gap. We can re-educate ourselves on equity. We can stop pretending we live in a society that treats everyone equally. What we can’t do is ignore the facts: there are 1.5 million missing black men in our country. Black children have worse educational outcomes than white children. Black children live in poverty at rates much above white children. Our society does not provide equal opportunities for all.

---

[1] If you have not Read Race to Equity you should. It can be found here.

Collaboration: More Than Just a Buzzword

Collaboration is one of those buzzwords you hear in every business meeting. People always want to collaborate, or leverage synergies, or create pathways to implement things, or yadda yadda yadda. It all sounds good from the outside, but it’s not that simple. When you’re talking about collaborating, it’s important to dive a little bit deeper into what goes into the process. If you’re thinking of partnering with another organization, whether in the same sector or a different one, here are a few things to keep in mind.

1.    Why are you looking to collaborate?

First and foremost, take a step back and clearly list out what gaps you find yourselves encountering as you try to fulfill your mission (United Way Worldwide, 2). If there’s no clear gap you can see, think a bit more about why you’re looking to collaborate. There are definitely other reasons to do so, but it might be time to really weigh the costs with the benefits. As the United Way points out, you can’t expect cost savings from a merger, so the benefits have to be worth it (United Way of Dane County, 1). For example, a government agency like the Massachusetts Department of Social Services may be looking to partner with (or contract out to) a nonprofit for specific services in order to lighten their load, but it may not always be in the best interest of the nonprofit in terms of their mission, workload, or finances (Varley).

Especially when the organizations are not in the same sector, it's crucial to make sure that you know why you're making this move. Each sector has its strengths and benefits to bring to the table -- a government agency may be more financial stable or have resources a nonprofit can't access; a nonprofit may have connections in the community that an agency couldn't even imagine creating -- but if what you're organization is missing isn't filled by these complementary benefits, maybe a collaboration isn't the right way to go.

2.     Who is going to make all the decisions?

When your organizations merge, there are tons of nuts and bolts you will need to consider -- from sharing and analyzing the finances and legal ramifications of a partnership to reorganizing and rebranding. It’s crucial to think strategically about who needs to be in the room from both sides of the partnership to make these decisions. Start with a small committee to manage the merger, and make sure they've got their rules established before anything else starts -- confidentiality agreements, basic ground rules, necessary subcommittees, milestones and timelines (United Way Worldwide, 5). It may be necessary to bring in an outsider to function as a neutral force to manage this team, especially when both parties have some conflicting views or are unlikely partners. When attempting to bridge the gap between supporters of a new art museum and advocates for a low-income housing project in the same area of downtown Seattle, for example, the First Things First coalition found this strategy particularly effective to ensure that everyone felt comfortable as the campaign moved forward (Electronic Hallway). 

If you're merging between sectors, this can get more complicated. Government agencies may have restrictions because of legislation or funding that nonprofits don't have to worry about. A private company might have a CEO making decisions without having to worry about multiple levels of red tape, which can speed up a process and open the partnership up for a freer exchange of ideas and perhaps funding, while a nonprofit may have to run all changes through a board for approval or make sure donors are on board with the new plans, which could quash some ideas. Keep in mind the challenges and opportunities that your potential collaboration partners might have, especially given their internal structures and obligations, when building this partnership.

3. So you've gotten the ball rolling. Now what?

Once you've got things moving (hopefully smoothly), you’re not off the hook yet.

First, make sure you've written everything down! It’s too easy to get caught up in the excitement of a new partnership only to realize that you didn't really agree on everything you thought you did. A written merger or partnership document is essential to preventing uncomfortable or even downright disastrous disagreements.

Second, get ready to evaluate! Your collaboration committee should have created a set of goals, milestones, and timelines to follow. After a set period, say 12-18 months, take a step back and see how you’re doing with respect to each of those. If things are going well, it may be time to expand in terms of resources or geography. If you haven’t hit those milestones, it’s time to decide whether to adjust and move forward or disband (Yankey and Willen, 387).

Ready to go? 

So much goes into a collaboration that it’s no wonder a clear definition is so hard to come by. Despite this difficulty, a partnership can be worth its weight in gold. But before you jump into something new, make sure you've done your due diligence.

Sources:

Electronic Hallway. Funding Seattle's Art Museum and Low-Income Housing: The Politics of Interest Groups and Tax Levies. Case Study. Seattle. Public Service Curriculum Exchange, 1996.

United Way of Dane County. "Topics for Discussion When Considering Merger." n.d.

United Way Worldwide. "Best Practices Summary: Collaboration, Coalition-Building and Merger". 2008.

Varley, Pamela. Partners in Child Protection Services: The Department of Social Services and La Alianza Hispana (A). Case Study. Boston. Harvard Kennedy School, 1996.

Yankey, John A. and Carol K. Willen. "Collaboration an Strategic Alliances." The Jossey-Bass Handbook of Nonprofit Leadership and Management. Ed. David O. Renz. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2010. 375-401. Print.

The Sky's the Limit!: Collaboration and Your Organization

Nonprofit collaborations have proliferated in recent years, both in number and array of collaboration styles. Nonprofits can partner intersectorally; government, private, other nonprofits, the sky’s the limit! These collaborations can also take a huge variety of forms including co-sponsorship, federation, coalition, consortium, network, joint venture, parent-subsidiary, merger and consolidation (Yankey, Jacobus, and Koney 2001). This diversity makes it hard to prescribe best practices for collaborations, but there are some key threads that we can pull out from the experiences of various nonprofits who have undergone collaborative processes.

Do what you do

Keep your mission. Play to your strengths. Incompatible missions are a primary challenge in collaboration (Yankey and Willen 2010). Organizations have to know where they stand and what goals they hope to achieve through this partnership. A side-by-side analysis early in the exploratory process of a collaboration can often help to hash out these details (Yankey and Willen 2010). This doesn’t mean that organizations with very different missions can’t collaborate; in fact it’s sometimes successful for very different organizations to band together if they have a goal in common. An example of this occurred in Seattle in a collaborative ballot initiative between an arts museum and a low-income housing project which secured funding for facilities expansion for both groups (Fortier 1996). The shared goal of winning the vote was in line with both of their very different missions, so it worked.

Balance internal and external environments  

Many collaborations arise out of a desire to strategically address external pressures like increasing funding or service provision. A favorable political and social environment for the merger is important for success (Sharma and Missey 1998). However success also depends upon keeping staff informed and securing their buy-in. Internal organizational culture differences can be a challenge in creating a successful partnership (Yankey and Willen 2010). This was a key consideration in a case where a Hispanic community center considered taking on child abuse case management from the state protective services in Boston.  Of primary concern was how this work would negatively affect their reputation in the community and thus their ability to carry out their mission. Significant doubts among board members about the benefits of the partnership also raised red flags (Varley 1996). While this analysis doesn’t bode well for the collaboration, it is a good demonstration of how an organization should consider the full impacts of partnership beyond financial gain.

Plan, plan, PLAN

Going into a collaboration, organizations should know exactly what they hope to get out of the partnership, how they intend to go about doing it, and how these plans support the missions of the organizations and will strategically advance the position of both in their communities (Yankey, Jacobus and Koney 2001). Developing a sound process for collaboration with clear roles and policy guidelines can go a long way towards to smoothing what may otherwise be a difficult transition (Yankey and Willen 2010, Sharma and Missey 1998). The negative consequences of entering into a partnership without taking time to plan the intention and implementation the union are demonstrated in the story of collaboration between the shoe manufacturer Timberland and the community service program City Year. This partnership began well and expanded quickly, but without a plan to guide the growth and intention of the collaboration, tensions between and within the two organizations eventually ended the partnership (Elias 1996).

Because there are so many possible combinations of sectors and types of collaborations, there is no cookie cutter process for pursuing a strategic alliance. But keeping these three things in mind will help organizations choose valuable alliances and succeed in their implementation.  

References

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

Fortier, Suzanne. 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.

Sharma, Janet and Amanda Missey. 1998. “How I learned to Stop Griping . . . And Love Collaboration.” From a presentation at the National Community Service Conference. June 30, 1998. New Orleans, LA.

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

Yankey, John A., Barbara Wester Jacobus, and Kelly McNally Koney. 2001. Merging Nonprofit Organizations: The Art and Science of the Deal. Mandel center for Nonprofit Organizations: Cleveland, OH.

Yankey, John A. and Carol K. Willen. 2010. “Collaboration and Strategic Alliances.” in The Jossey-Bass Handbook of Nonprofit Leadership and Management. Renz, David O, ed. 375-400. Jossey-Bass. San Francisco, CA. 

Why the nonprofit sector is unique

Non-profits in America are unique in that they give voice and place to some of society's most extraordinary needs. Nonprofits complete the web of work that we as a collective do, by supporting special interests, providing relief and developing community. Did you know that nonprofits exist in Colorado whose sole purpose is to provide bear-proof trashcans to citizens?1 There is an organization called the "National Odd Shoe Exchange" that specializes in providing one shoe for those who have a particular need. 2 Or take the cat allies nonprofit near Franklin County Florida that only serves the well-being of cats and cat allies on St. George Island. 3 The sector is diverse indeed.

Over 1.5 million nonprofits exist in the United States 4 and they are very different from their public and private sector siblings. Oftentimes nonprofits are encouraged to work more like organizations in the private sector who benefit from: quantifiable results, fewer budget constraints and more centralized processes. Americans have an affinity for efficiency, and when we see it happening in one place we wonder why it can't happen everywhere. I should admit that after having worked for nonprofits for eight years I too fell in and out of this mind trap. "If only we could be better at x, y, z... if only we had more money or more agile members... why can't my boss just delegate these tasks so that there is one direct person responsible for every project!!?" Well, there are a host of reasons why, and listing all of them would overwhelm this week's blog post. Additionally, my classmates presented strong contributions on the overarching attributes of nonprofits, so instead I will aim to drill down on one specific to example to illustrate the unique nature of nonprofit organizations. 

Evaluation. It cannot be overlooked that measurement and evaluation is very different for nonprofit organizations than it is for private and public sector organizations. Timelines for change and work with human services make determining outcomes tricky business. The work that nonprofits do does not often lend itself well to neat and tidy forms of measurement (the public sector can relate to this challenge as well, though I would argue that adding the public as a vested stakeholder whose dollars are at hand might put the public sector in an even more difficult place than many nonprofits). How can you linearly track the progress of individuals when so many factors have been involved in their growth? Collaboration is a key component of non-profits and is essential for budgeting, so which organization had the most impact or which organization deserves the kudos for the outcome? In a world of numbers, will quotes, pictures and success stories have as much of an impact? These strategies frequently work for public and private sector organizations and do not transfer as easily to many nonprofits.

Its also true that answers to these questions vary by organization. Therefore, what can the nonprofit do that its stepbrothers and sisters cannot? The nonprofit can have a nimble approach to its challenges. It is not the public or private sector and it must operate differently. In other words, it gets to operate differently! Approaching the sector this way reminds us of the void it fills in our nation's infrastructure- thus divinely pairing with the public and private realms of life. 

Additional sources:Renz, David O, ed. 2010. The Jossey-Bass Handbook of Nonprofit Leadership and Management. Jossey-Bass. San Francisco, CA. 

4 Things You Need to Know about the Nonprofit Sector

Philanthropy is commendable, but it must not cause the philanthropist to overlook the circumstances of economic injustice which make philanthropy necessary.

Martin Luther King, Jr. 

Nonprofit organizations today operate in an increasingly complex and interconnected environment. In order to understand the role of nonprofit organizations today, it is helpful to look at the nonprofit sector as it relates to the public sector (government) and the private sector (business).

1. Nonprofits step in where Government and Business left off

Government offers basic services to address social needs such as the Food Share program, subsidized healthcare and public transportation. However, in a political climate of demands for tax cuts and a smaller government, the role of government in addressing social needs is shrinking. In his article, “Doing ‘Good’ vs. Doing ‘Well’: The Role of Nonprofits in Society”, Berman notes that although the role of government may decrease, the needs of society do not decrease correspondingly (Berman, 2002).

Businesses vary greatly in their social impact, but businesses simply cannot exist in the long run if they don’t make a profit. Making a positive societal impact must take the back seat to profit in a business.  Social welfare cannot be realized by the public nor private sector in these circumstances. There is a real and pressing need for nonprofit work. 

2. Nonprofits Make a Profit

Nonprofit organizations are not legally prevented from making a profit. The key difference is what they are legally permitted to do with that profit. Nonprofit organizations, unlike government and business, are subject to the doctrine of private inurement. Basically, this ensures nonprofits are operated for the benefit of those they serve, by preventing nonprofits from passing their profits on to employees and the board.

This makes nonprofits unique. Successful businesses make a profit and pass it on those with an interest in the business such as shareholders/owners and employees (though not usually in equal proportion). Moreover, we’ve surely all heard by now condemnation of the government deficit. The government ought to make a profit, too, though it is not always distributed in the same manner as in businesses (Renz, 2010).

3. Businesses have stockholders, Nonprofits have stakeholders

Businesses are ultimately accountable to their owners. The government is (supposed to be) ultimately accountable to its citizens. The nonprofit accountability arrangement varies greatly. Nonprofits based on membership (such as the American Association of University Women or the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) are accountable to their members. Organizations that provide a service are accountable to those they serve, although this may be ineffective. Policy advocacy networks such as the Sierra Club and Amnesty International have some accountability to their members, who pay dues, and their volunteers. Other nonprofits seem to only be accountable to whichever members of society they claim as their stakeholders. The relationship is much less defined (Renz, 2010).

4. There’s no such thing as “one size fits all” in the Nonprofit Sector 

There is an incredible amount of nonprofit organizations today. These include charitable, educational, religious, scientific, social and political organizations, among many others. (Did you know the NFL is a nonprofit?) Moreover, there are many nonprofits that resemble businesses (such as microfinance organizations, like KIVA) and nonprofits that maintain a close relationship with government. Keep in mind, when considering the nonprofit sector, that nonprofit interests, goals and activities constitute a very wide range (Renz, 2010).

References:

Berman, Howard J. 2002. Doing "Good" vs. Doing "Well": The Role of Nonprofits in Society. Inquiry 39: 5-11.

Renz, David O, ed. 2010. The Jossey-Bass Handbook of Nonprofit Leadership and Management. Jossey-Bass. San Francisco, CA. 

Nobody Puts Non-Profits in a Corner: Dispelling the Myth of Isolation Between the Three Sectors

As busy people, we like to look at things as black and white, divided carefully and completely into separate categories. This thing goes in that box. Check. Done. The goals and roles of various institutions are no different. When we think about the work of government, we try to categorize it into a few main boxes: collecting taxes, managing the military, doling out Social Security checks. For-profits (i.e. corporations) exist, we might believe, solely to make money by selling us something or performing some task for us. Check. Non-profits are tasked with handing out charity. Done.

In the minds of many, these three sectors stay in their own lanes. The reality of it, however, is that there is a much deeper interplay between them. Certainly, all three sectors are likely to have some different roles in our lives and our communities, but they ought not to be so rigidly categorized.

David O. Renz traces the history of this interplay from the founding of the United States, when voluntary associations, the precursor to modern non-profits, were distrusted as tools of the wealthy to increase their standing, to the dramatic rise of foundations and charitable giving in the 19^th century, then embraced by Americans as they sought to enact social reforms. Over the last 100 years, as government has increased dramatically in both scope and in scale, the number of issues that have direct impacts on society, and have attracted dedicated supporters and detractors, has likewise skyrocketed. Non-profits have arisen as a powerful tool to enable citizens to influence government policy, in many cases serving as advocacy organizations rather than providing direct services to the needy.

As Howard Berman points out in The McNerny Forum, in today’s political climate, where the idea of government spending is often frowned upon by a majority of the electorate, non-profits are there to fill a void. Tight governmental budgets mean tough fights, and often even tougher losses, for program funding. Advocacy organizations, or non-operating organizations, fulfill their charitable role by working to bring about knowledge of the issues and the impacts of cuts to funding or inaction. Their work is to influence government, to humanize the political process and its ramifications. And when cuts are made, or when government simply cannot meet the social welfare needs of its citizens, operating non-profits yet again step in to fill this gap. In turn, government often recognizes the important role of non-profits, both as advocates for causes and groups who might otherwise go unnoticed and as providers of direct aid, through various funding structures that enable non-profits to exist. Each sector is deeply influenced by the other.

Similarly, the public and private sectors interact in ways that are not always readily apparent. Whereas most think of corporations as profit-seeking organizations, many for-profits employ the concept of corporate social responsibility – or, as Berman puts it, doing “good” instead of just doing “well.” Corporations have learned that a healthy, stable community is good for business, but typically not within the expertise of the corporation itself to undertake. Here again, non-profits fill a void. Their role as on-the-ground actors enables businesses that seek to do “good” in their communities to find the right ways to have a real effect on individuals.

These three sectors each function with their own roles within society. They do not, however, function within a vacuum. Instead, there is a delicate but omnipresent interplay between them. Where government may fall short, non-profits may step in to provide services. Where non-profits need institutionalized support, government may provide this in the form of funding. And where business seeks to expand its impact beyond profit for shareholders, non-profits may enable them to do so efficiently and for the greatest good.

Sources:

Renz, David O, ed. 2010. The Jossey-Bass Handbook of Nonprofit Leadership and Management. Jossey-Bass. San Francisco, CA. 

Berman, Howard J. 2002. Doing "Good" vs. Doing "Well": The Role of Nonprofits in Society. Inquiry 39: 5-11.