Why volunteers before how volunteers

December 20, 2011

Filed under: Planning,Volunteer Management — Tags: — jonathanpoisner @ 3:26 pm

It’s an age-old question in virtually any social impact organization – how we do get volunteers?

In my experience, if you start by answering that question, you’re getting off on the wrong foot.

Instead, you should first ask the question: why volunteers?

How you go about getting volunteers will greatly impact what types of volunteers you secure.    You may recruit lots in raw numbers, but not meet your needs.

So before designing the how, start with the why.

And to answer the why, I generally counsel asking two other questions in combination:

First, what do you most want out of your volunteers?

Second, what level of volunteer do you need?

Let’s take those questions in turn.

What do you most want out of your volunteers?

Here are four potential reasons I’ve experienced first-hand:

1. To do the work staff just can’t get around to doing (either back-end administration/fundraising or programmatic).   62.8 million adults volunteered almost 8.1 billion hours to local and national organizations in 2010 (Source: VolunteeringinAmerica.gov).  A well-designed volunteer program should get more work done than could be done with the staff time necessary to recruit the volunteers.

2. To be authentic voices.   Whether in fundraising or program, volunteers can speak authentically in ways that staff simply can’t.

3. As sources of local knowledge.  Particularly if your organization is trying to make a difference over a relatively large geography, volunteers are uniquely positioned to become your eyes and ears on the ground to help you make sure you deploy your resources in their geography in ways that will work.

4. As sources of specialized expertise.  Whether it be graphic design, accounting, information technology, or a dozen other areas, organizations can sometimes meet their needs for technical expertise through high-level volunteers that save them money.

If this is what you most want out of your volunteers, the second question is: what level of volunteer do you need?

My very crude short-hand is that there are three levels of volunteerism: participants, activity leaders, and organizational leaders.

Participants show up and do something for you.   Often just once, but sometimes repeatedly.   This is the bread and butter of many volunteer programs, particularly if they aim to generate lots of activity – tree plantings, stream cleanups, canvassing door-to-door, phone banks, and mailing parties are just a few  of the potential activities for which you need participants.

Activity leaders are the next level up: these volunteers are willing to lead all or part of some activity.  They may provide the training for participants, they may provide food for the fundraiser, or they may take responsibility to find 10 people for a phone bank, to cite just a few examples.

Organizational leaders take ownership for the long-term health of the group, overseeing either a series of activities or overall organizational health.  Board members are inherently organizational leaders if they’re doing their job.  But social impact organizations shouldn’t assume that only board members will fulfill organizational leadership roles.  Other volunteers can be cultivated and given non-board authority in ways that allow them to take on organizational leadership volunteering.

After answering these questions, it’s now appropriate to go back and set up a program that answers the how of volunteer recruitment.

If what you most need is local knowledge from people who’ll take organizational leadership, it argues for a very different volunteer program than if what you need most are activity participants who’ll do basic grunt work.

In a future blog entry or article, I’ll write more about effective volunteer recruitment programs that match up with the different why’s.

But no matter your skill-set at recruitment, you’ll go further in setting up your program if you start by answering the question why.

Raising money through strategic planning

November 11, 2011

Filed under: Fundraising,Planning — Tags: , — jonathanpoisner @ 11:12 am

Strategic planning can require significant resources — both time and money.

Fortunately, going through the process can also be a means of raising additional resources.

In my mind, there are three key tactics you should think about using to raise money from your strategic planning process.

The most obvious, and the one most people think about, is using the finished plan to sell donors on funding whatever is “new” in the plan.   Usually this involves creating a short 1-2 page summary of the plan and using it with selected major donors and foundations.   If, for example, the plan calls for hiring a full-time communications director and upgrading a website, those items could be pulled into a mini-budget and presented to funders as a reason to step up their level of giving.

But there are two other tactical steps organizations should also consider to turn a planning process into a revenue generator.

For starters, you should look for funders who will underwrite the planning process itself.   Many foundations fund capacity building either in general or for those organizations with which they have a long-term funding relationship.   Occasionally, an individual major donor (perhaps a board member) who values planning will step up with an extra donation to cover a significant portion of the planning process costs.  Start thinking about this the year prior to a planning process, so you have ample time to make the case to funders.

Second, you should think about using the process to cultivate your relationship with your supporters.  Many strategic planning processes involve some sort of interview process for stakeholders and you should think consciously about whether some major donors should be added into the process as a means of cultivating their support for the organization.   This may slightly increease the cost of your process (more interviews), but with a big potential pay-off afterwards.

Cultivation shouldn’t stop with major donors.  If your organization has a membership or base constituency that it can reach via email, do an online member survey.  Ask some questions to ascertain what your supporters want you to prioritize, while lao learning things about them that could be useful for future fundraising.   Beyond what you learn, just the process of asking for their input will help cement their support for your organization’s work.

Should you hire for skill or spirit?

Filed under: Personnel Management — Tags: — jonathanpoisner @ 10:15 am

I’m not sure I’d use the term “spirit,” but I definitely think too many nonprofits hire based solely on who has the experience/skill and not enough attention is paid to passion, authenticity, teamwork, and natural aptitude. Those can’t be taught.

Here’s an author who agrees with me, from the for-profit business perspective.

http://www.fastcompany.com/1793369/hiring-for-skill-or-spirit

On the perils of chasing money

October 28, 2011

Filed under: Fundraising — Tags: — jonathanpoisner @ 3:43 pm

I recently had a conversation with an organizational Executive Director who was having their group round up its grassroots supporters to generate online votes to have the group selected to win a small grant.  (Small means that in the organization’s context, it would at most be 1% of the organization’s budget if they received it).

What was odd to me is that the grant they were seeking was to do work that wasn’t part of their strategic plan.  Indeed, it wasn’t even something that fit within the group’s core niche/role, so it’s not that it wasn’t part of the plan because it was low priority — it was off the map entirely.

When I asked the ED why they were nonetheless pursuing it, their response was that the dollars flowing in would be twice what it would actually cost to implement and it would get the group on the radar screen of a foundation.

I pondered this for a few minutes and my reaction was — that’s not right.

Chasing money off-plan fails to account for:

  • Staff time necessary to first chase the money, then implement the small project, then possibly to report back on it.
  • The opportunity cost — eg. what the staffers involved in drumming up “votes” for the proposal could have raised from spending that time meeting with individual donors.
  • The dilution of the organizational brand, as grassroots supporters become confused about what the organization is all about.  The same is perhaps doubly true with foundations — being on a foundation’s radar screen, but then perhaps being misidentified as something you’re not strikes me as a negative, not a positive.

Bottom line:  chasing money can be hazardous to organizational health.

Look for more on this in a future edition of my article: Why Organizations Go Off Course.

Talking in values language

October 20, 2011

Filed under: Communications — Tags: , — jonathanpoisner @ 2:41 pm

I recently was speaking to a board of a conservation organization and said that they were working to protect “environmental values.”  And that we should lead with our values, not our policies.

One of them asked, what’s that mean?

Here’s my answer:

Values are the first-order rationale for why you want the policies you want.  They are too often unstated by advocates.

Clean water is a policy choice.

The value is why you want clean water.

Here there are multiple potential answers:

Safety — Because people deserve to be safe from poisons

Fairness — It’s unfair for current generations to rob future generations of the world’s precious resources

Responsibility — We have a responsibility to protect the natural world for future generations

And you can I’m sure think of other examples.

Safety, fairness, responsibility, legacy, family — these are examples of values that underlie the why behind the work that conservation advocates do.

Organizations focused on other issues have their own constellation of values.

The important thing is that we need to be up-front about our values.  When we are, people will pay more attention to us when we drill down into the policy.  If we lead with the policy, their eyes will glaze over and they won’t find us worth their time.

How Organizations Learn

August 8, 2011

Filed under: Planning — Tags: , — jonathanpoisner @ 11:58 am

Just read a fascinating article in the Stanford Social Innovation Review on how organizations learn.

It definitely has tremendous applicability to any effort to help an organization establish systems or conduct training. Still pondering what it means for my work, but thought it was worth sharing.

Why I do what I do

August 4, 2011

Filed under: About My Work — jonathanpoisner @ 4:26 pm

I’m about 20 months into my work as a consultant.

As my day-to-day has become busier (thanks to my wonderful, fabulous clients!) I’ve started to think harder about what I’m trying to accomplish.

My mission: To help progressive social impact organizations thrive.

My vision: To work with 15-20 clients per year, with about one-third of those being repeat clients.  To help those groups leave the consulting process in a higher orbit, with a permanent increase in their capacity, not just a temporary boost.

Why do I do this: Because I see too many people reinventing the wheel.  Because even the most talented advocates have gaps in their expertise and, in many instances, I can help fill in those gaps.  Because I love inspiring people.  Because I want to create big ripples in this pond we live in.

How often should your board meet?

Filed under: Board Development — Tags: — jonathanpoisner @ 4:24 pm

I’ve had this question come up in conversation a few times in the last month.

There is, of course, no pat answer.

Here are some factors that would lead me to meet quite frequently (eg. monthly):

  • If the board has real fears about fiscal health and needs to either take charge of it or hold an Executive Director accountable.
  • If the organization lacks staff and the board is therefore responsible for fundraising and program
  • If the organizational lay of the land is in a very rapid state of change

Here are some factors that would lead me to meet either 4 or 6 times per year instead:

  • If there are functioning committees and you want to give committees more time between meetings to do their work.
  • If monthly meetings take up so much time that the board doesn’t feel it has time to meet its fundraising obligations.
  • If less frequent (but longer) board meetings will allow the Executive Director to spend less time doing basic board meeting prep that comes at the expense of fundraising/program.

Of course, if you go to longer board meetings, it does place a higher burden on the Executive Director to come up with other means between board meetings to maintain communications with the board.  I’ve written about the subject of ED-Board communications previously.

In my experience, as organizations mature they should move from more frequent shorter meetings to less frequent longer meetings.   For most organizations, somewhere between 10-16 hours of meetings per year should be sufficient, if there are functioning committees capable of doing the work between meetings.  This is on top of any board retreat that’s about long-range planning, which is worthy of its own blog post.

Read this. Now.

July 27, 2011

Filed under: Fundraising — jonathanpoisner @ 10:19 am

Came across the attached and thought it was so good that I’m encouraging anyone I know who cares about social change, particularly fundraising for social change, to read it.  Now.

Lisa Simpson for Nonprofits: What Science Can Teach You About Fundraising, Marketing, and Making Social Change, a 24 page ebook by Network for Good and Sea Change Strategies.

Would love to hear your thoughts on it.

When do you hire a Development Director?

July 26, 2011

Filed under: Fundraising,Personnel Management — Tags: — jonathanpoisner @ 10:43 am

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the transition of organization from all-volunteer, to their first Executive Director, to the build out of additional staff.

One of the recurring questions that comes up — when do you add a Development Director to the staff?

I know of several organizations that hired a Development Director as the first or second hire after the Executive Director, and the results have been mixed.

So here are some of the questions I’d ask myself before hiring a first Development Director:

Do I have a clear fundraising plan so they can hit the ground running?  If not, they could wind up spinning their wheels at the beginning or worse, going off in pursuit of the wrong strategies.

Do I already have more true organizational prospects to solicit than I have time to solicit?  If the biggest barrier you have to major donor fundraising is lack of prospects, how does adding a Development Director help?

If I expect the development director to manage low dollar fundraising, have I made a realistic assessment of the time that will take and the net revenue it will generate, taking their staff costs into account in determining net revenue.  Low dollar programs are very valuable over the long-run, but often cost money in the short run to develop them, particularly when staff time is included in the evaluation.

If they will be taking over management of a major fundraising event or series of events that I have previously managed, how much time will that free up for me to raise money through other methods?   What will those methods be?    And am I taking into account the time I will need to supervise the Development Director?

Can I find somebody who’s a true self-starter and who starts out with relationships they can tap into for fundraising, so that they’re bringing new donors to the table with less time necessary for my management of them?

If they do start bringing in more donations, do I have the administrative systems and staffing in place to handle a larger flow of donations (eg. banking, databasing, thank you’s, cultivation, etc.).  Or will the development director have to manage all of that?  Have I taken that into account when guesstimating how much money they will be able to raise?

Have I set aside in savings up to 3 months of their salary so that they can ramp up their work methodically for the long-run, rather than forcing them to cut corners up-front trying to raise money at all costs.  I’ve seen Development Directors start who’ve come in with a burst of frantic energy tapping a small number of their own relationships with some success, but having done nothing to lay the groundwork for future fundraising, so it sputters to a halt.

From the above, one would think I’m negative on hiring Development Directors.  To the contrary, for a thriving organization, you will at some point reach the stage where the Executive Director must have somebody else whose full-time job is thinking about and executing development plans.

But adding that staff prematurely is as likely to set you back organizationally as move you forward.  So think it through!

What do you think?  Are there additional considerations that I haven’t mentioned?

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Content © Copyright 2010-2011 • Jonathan Poisner Strategic Consulting LLC. All rights reserved.