The Role of Nonprofits in a Diverse Community

Diversity: Valuing, respecting, and appreciating the differences that make us unique.¹

The makeup of our society is ever changing. People of different races, ethnic identities, religions, genders, ages, and sexual orientations coexist in our communities. The leaders we look up to emphasize the importance of diversity in our schools, workplaces, and other public places- but we are far from valuing, respecting, and appreciating the unique characteristics of those who are different from us. We choose hate instead of love, violence instead of peace. We focus on what makes us different, instead of embracing our shared humanness and appreciating people for who they are. All nonprofit agencies share a common goal: to meet one or more needs of the community they serve. Since the majority of nonprofits serve diverse populations, leaders of these organizations are in the unique position to advocate for the acceptance of diversity in our society. In addition, these leaders can recognize when the communities they serve are being mistreated, and can fight for justice for those without a voice.  

Take, for example, the recent, tragic death of 19-year-old Tony Robinson in Madison, WI. Robinson, an African American male, was fatally shot by a white police officer while unarmed during an altercation in early March. The Wisconsin Department of Justice is currently investigating the shooting. Since the time of the shooting, leaders from nonprofit organizations such as the United Way, Madison Metropolitan School District, Boys and Girls Club, and the African American Council of Churches  have banded together to encourage radical change in the way we view race relations in the Madison community. These nonprofit agencies care about the people they serve, and as a result are willing to take a stand against the injustice felt by the African American community.

So what can we, as emerging leaders, do to encourage diversity in our organizations? First, we can educate ourselves to become more competent about cultures and experiences different than our own. As Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “an individual has not started living until he can rise above the narrow confines of his individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity.” We need to recognize that we will never fully understand the experiences of those who are different than us, but we can learn to respect, value, appreciate, and learn from our differences. Next, we can challenge injustice when we see or experience it in our communities. Whether it be racism, sexism, ageism, or any other -ism, we can voice our opinions and demand equality for those being mistreated. Lastly, we can join forces with other leaders in our community to advocate for necessary change in our society, as demonstrated by the organizations involved in Tony Robinson’s case. By uniting with other agencies, we can increase the power of our voice and spread our message to populations we may otherwise be unable to reach.  

---

1 McNett, J. (2005). Diversity in the workplace: Ethics, pragmatism, or some of both? In C. P. Harvey & M. J. Allard, Understanding and managing diversity: Readings, cases, and exercises (pp. 241-252). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.^↩

Collaboration Across Nonprofit, For-profit, and Public Sectors

What comes to mind when you hear the term "collaboration?" Perhaps you envision students working together to complete a school project, companies joining forces to create a new product, or even a college basketball team playing together to win the National Championship (we still love you, Badgers). Simply defined, collaboration is the act of working together to complete a goal. In the world of nonprofit agencies, collaboration can present both opportunities and challenges, as we saw in the cases presented in class on March 19th.

In the first case, the Department of Social Services (DSS) asked La Alianza (LA), a nonprofit organization serving Boston's Latino population, to join with them to provide better child protective services to the community. The staff at LA had no experience with child protection cases, and did not trust that DSS would be able to provide the training and resources necessary for the partnership to succeed. While working with DSS provided an opportunity for increased funding, the lack of shared vision and trust between the two agencies led LA to question the benefits of collaboration.¹

In the second case, the for-profit company Timberland Boots partnered with the nonprofit agency City Year to produce a line of clothing known as City Year Gear. City Year received financial support and a solid volunteer base from Timberland, while Timberland saw an increase in sales and publicity from association with the well-known nonprofit.  While the two organizations had a strong, mutually beneficial partnership in the early 1990's, a different story emerged when Timberland posted its first loss in 1995. Because of a lack of planning and vision for the partnership, company leadership was unsure of how to continue their collaboration with City Year when they encountered financial hardships.²

In the last case,  two nonprofit organizations- the Seattle Art Museum (SAM) and First Things First (FTF)- joined together to encourage voters to support two separate proposals (each benefiting one of the agencies) on a tax levy bill. SAM brought financial resources to the partnership, while FTF brought the manpower necessary to make voters aware of the issues. Unfortunately, this partnership began to suffer when FTF volunteers started to believe SAM volunteers were not carrying their fair share of the work and began to reconsider the benefits of the partnership. ³

There are a few key differences that emerge from these examples of collaboration across the different sectors. When partnering with public sector organizations, nonprofits can often benefit from the funding the government has to offer. However, the nonprofit must be flexible in order to meet the expectations set by the government in order to receive funding. These expectations may or may not align with the nonprofit's mission. When working with for-profits, nonprofits must realize the two organizations will automatically have different goals. The for-profit agency must produce a profit in order to survive. While partnerships with for-profits can provide valuable resources to the nonprofit, the vision of the agencies will never completely align. Partnerships between multiple nonprofits can be just as complicated. One agency may be able to contribute more to the partnership than the other, simply because they have more resources available. As a result, the partnership may not feel equal to the organizations involved, which can lead to a lack of trust. ⁴

There are a few common themes across the different sectors as well.  First, the necessity of a shared vision between organizations, whether in the nonprofit, for-profit, or public sector plays a role in all of these cases. Organizations need to agree on their mission and strategy in order to work together effectively.⁴ In addition, organizations must have mutual trust in one another in order to succeed, and  must keep communication open in order to discuss any issues that may arise.⁴

---

1 Varley, P. (1996). "Partners in Child Protective Services: The Department of Social Services and La Alianza Hispana." John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.^↩

2 Elias, J. (1996). "Timberland and Community Involvement." Harvard Business School.^↩

3 "Funding Seattle's New Art Museum and Low-Income Housing: The Politics of Interest Groups and Tax Levies (A)" (1996). Cascade Center for Public Service, Public Service Curriculum Exchange.^↩

4 Sharma, J. & Missey, A. (1998). "How I Learned to Stop Griping and Love Collaboration." Volunteer Center of Bergen County, Inc.^↩

How to Create an Effective Strategic Plan

Strategic planning can be defined as the process of addressing change.¹ An effective strategic plan provides a road map for an organization, directing key stakeholders towards a shared vision while identifying challenges to overcome along the way.¹ A strategic plan motivates organizations to be innovative both when facing challenges and when evaluating high performing programs. It pushes stakeholders to collaborate around critical issues in the organization, and to be aware of the organization’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats.¹ By using the framework below, an organization can develop an effective strategic plan to confront and overcome critical issues that may arise.

Identify key stakeholders

The first step in strategic planning involves identifying who should be involved in the process. These key decision makers must agree upon the structure of the overall planning process and key steps in accomplishing the organization’s strategic planning goals.²

Clarify mission and values

An organization’s mission defines its reason for existence. Without a mission, an organization has no foundation and stakeholders can easily lose focus on what they originally aimed to accomplish. Clarifying an organization’s mission reminds stakeholders of the purpose of the organization, and can help eliminate unnecessary conflict around what the organization aims to accomplish.²

Develop long-range vision

For established organizations, it is important for stakeholders to define a long-term vision. This is difficult for brand new organizations because the future of the organization is often unclear. For mature and autonomous organizations, it is important to determine which direction the organization hopes to move towards in the future.³

Assess internal and external environments

In order to assess the environment surrounding the organization, stakeholders must consider the organization’s strengths (S), weaknesses (W), opportunities (O), and threats (T), called a SWOT analysis. In doing so, organization can gain insight into upcoming challenges and prepare for future opportunities.²

Define strategic issue(s)

After assessing the environment, stakeholders must decide which issue(s) they intend to resolve through strategic planning. Identifying these strategic issues draws attention to the areas within the organization of greatest concern. These issues can develop internally or externally, and must a) impact the organization’s performance, b) require a response from the organization, and c) have the ability to change through the efforts of the organization.³

Develop a strategy and implement the plan

Next, key decision makers must decide how they want to address the strategic issue(s) they have identified. This often involves identifying barriers to success, along with brainstorming alternate solutions to resolve the stated strategic issue(s). After brainstorming a variety of proposals, stakeholders collaborate to determine which proposal has the greatest chance of success in their organization. After developing a strategy to overcome the identified issues, the organization must put the plan into action!²

Evaluate

In the last step of the strategic planning process, stakeholders must evaluate the implementation of the strategic plan and assess whether goals are being met. Though evaluation is listed as the last step in the process, stakeholders should be sure to evaluate the strategic plan throughout the process, to ensure organizational goals are being met along the way.²

---

1 Brody, R. (2005). Strategic planning (Ch. 2), in Effectively Managing Human Service Organizations, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 20-38. ^↩2 Bryson, J. M. (2010). Strategic planning and the strategy change cycle (Ch.9). In D. O. Renz (3rd ed.), The Jossey-Bass Handbook of Nonprofit Leadership and Management, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 230-261. ^↩3 United Way of Dane County. Strategic Planning Process.^↩

The Challenge to Change, as Told by David Bowie, Bob Dylan, and the Cast of High School Musical

If you wanna be cool

Follow one simple rule

Don't mess with the flow, no no

Stick to the status quo

-Disney’s High School Musical, Stick to the Status Quo

As so eloquently captured by these lyrics, human beings love predictability. We crave routine and structure in our daily lives. We embrace what we know, and try our best to avoid unfamiliar territory. We are homeostasis junkies, and we like it that way.

The same holds true for the organizations we work with and the communities we live in. When faced with the opportunity to try something different, organizations can be overwhelmed by the mere process required to discuss making a change, nonetheless to implement it. As a result, humans, communities, and  organizations alike often stick to the status quo and cease to evolve.

If your time to you

Is worth savin'

Then you better start swimmin'

Or you'll sink like a stone

For the times they are a-changin'.

-Bob Dylan, The Times They Are A-Changin’

But why is change so difficult? Why do so many organizations “sink like stone,” like the song forewarns? First, implementing a change takes hard work. Like a salmon swimming upstream, catalysts of change must be motivated, determined, and unafraid of failure. Those lacking any of these three characteristics will be hard pressed to succeed when meeting new challenges. Second, changes always produces loss. Those afraid of losing what is familiar- whether it be programming, responsibilities, resources, or even relationships with those around them- will have difficulty recognizing the benefits of change and will be hesitant to move towards it.

Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes

Turn and face the strange

Ch-ch-changes

-David Bowie, Changes

In order to overcome these barriers and “face the ch-ch-changes,” an organization must foster a readiness to change in key stakeholders.¹ First, leaders in the organization must be able to help stakeholders identify important standards that are not being met, and how the proposed change could help satisfy these standards.¹ This provides a rationale behind change, instead of change for its own sake.² Next, leaders can help stakeholders identify external threats that may hinder the organization if the change is not implemented, as well as recognize the benefits and rewards that can come along with new opportunities .¹ Furthermore, leaders can help stakeholders recognize that while making a change in the organization may create a sense of loss, the benefits of the change far outweigh what had been previously gained.

In addition to creating change readiness within an organization before a transformation occurs, leaders need to continue to support stakeholders after the change has been implemented. In order to do this, management and board members need to allow time for employees and volunteers to adapt to the changes, recognizing the ongoing need for adjustments and learning.² Additionally, leaders can set a consistent example while staying positive, choosing to focus on the benefits of the change instead of the inconveniences.² Leaders can acknowledge and reward change as they see staff, donors, and volunteers making an effort to get on board.² This reinforces change in a positive way, making it more appealing for stakeholders to move away from the status quo. Last, leaders can continually ask for feedback from stakeholders and act on the feedback provided.² This level of transparency in an organization makes the change process inclusive, giving stakeholders a sense of ownership in the process and a reason to support organizational change.

Although the lyric “change” might strike fear into the heart of many, proper framing of the transformation by good leaders can make the process more manageable. By following the outlined techniques, leaders can create and manage organizational change in a way that leverages the abilities of their stakeholders instead of alienating them.

1 Cameron, K. S. (1991). Transformational leadership. In Developing management skills (pp. 1-26). New York, NY: Harper-Collins. ^↩2 Calvert, D. (2012, December 16). Why Is It So Difficult to Implement Change? Retrieved February 14, 2015, from http://www.managingamericans.com/BlogFeed/Communication-Skills/Why-Is-It-So-Difficult-to-Implement-Change.htm^↩

The Motivation Behind a Mission Statement (The Role of Nonprofit vs. Public vs. Private Sectors)

Effective organizations are guided by a mission statement. A mission statement is both the anchor and the compass of the organization; grounding it in its purpose and determining which direction to go. It tells the story of an organization- why it exists, what it hopes to accomplish, and how it plans to achieve its goals.While organizations in the private, public, and nonprofit sectors may have similar goals, the motivation behind these goals is often vastly different. The significance of the nonprofit sector shines through in these differences.

“Do good, have fun, make money”- Epic

Epic is a private, for-profit company that creates medical software for health care organizations around the world. As demonstrated in the conclusion of Epic’s mission statement, organizations within the private sector exist to make money. While many businesses are dedicated to “doing good,” it is never their primary objective. These organizations need to make money in order to survive, and exist to benefit their owners financially.¹ Some businesses, like Epic, choose to donate a portion of their profits to charitable organizations. Other companies completely abstain or encourage employees to give as they see fit.²

“Provide America's taxpayers top quality service by helping them understand and meet their tax responsibilities and enforce the law with integrity and fairness to all.”-Internal Revenue Service (IRS)

Instead of existing to generate a profit like private sector businesses, the public sector aims to create a safe, orderly, and just society through government funded programs, like the IRS. The role of the government as a social safety net ebbs and flows based on public opinion as measured by voting outcomes. While public sector programs provide for a variety of needs, they do not have the resources to keep up with the demands of a growing, complex society, creating a gap in available services and resources. This is where the third sector, made up of nonprofit organizations, comes into play.

“United Way improves lives by mobilizing the caring power of communities around the world to advance the common good”- United Way

The final sector, the nonprofit sector, exists to “maximize social welfare,” as demonstrated by the mission statement of the United Way.³ These organizations cover a multitude of goods and services, all on a not-for-profit basis. Unlike the private sector, any profit gained in a nonprofit organization does not increase the personal wealth of owners or stockholders, but instead cycles back into the agency to maintain and multiply the goods and services provided.

Nonprofit organizations are often partially or fully funded by donations, unlike private and public organizations. If the mission or vision of a nonprofit organization does not rally public support, the organization will have a difficult time finding the necessary financial support. In addition, nonprofit organizations must be trustworthy in order to gain public support. Organizations earn trust by acting with integrity, meaning the organization’s intentions and promises match its reality.⁴ Unlike the private and public sectors, organizations in the nonprofit sector are expected to always “do good,” and are often held to a higher moral standard.

Organizations in each sector of the economy have a variety of reasons to accomplish their stated mission. The nonprofit sector is unique because it can satisfy needs that neither the public sector nor private sector can accommodate. Organizations in the nonprofit sector are not motivated by financial gain like those in the private sector, nor are they constricted by government regulations like the public sector. Instead, nonprofit organizations are free to act where there is a need, and as a result provide the structure and support communities need to thrive.

---

1 Hopkins, B., & Gross, V. (2010). The legal framework of the nonprofit sector in the United States. In D. O. Renz (3rd ed.), The Jossey-Bass handbook of nonprofit leadership and management (pp. 42-76). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 
2 Berman, H. (2002). Doing “good” vs. doing “well”: The role of nonprofits in society. Inquiry, 39, 5-11.
3 Hall, P. (2010). Historical perspectives on nonprofit organizations in the United States. In D. O. Renz (3rd ed.), The Jossey-Bass handbook of nonprofit leadership and management (pp. 3-41). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
4 Jeavons, T. (2010). Ethical nonprofit management: Core values and key practices. In D. O. Renz (3rd ed.), The Jossey-Bass handbook of nonprofit leadership and management (pp. 178-205). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.