Last week I led a planning call among the panelists on the “Supporting Nonprofit Sustainability” session I am moderating at April’s Center for Effective Philanthropy conference (which I described in an earlier post). One of the panelist suggested that we start the session by defining what we mean by “nonprofit sustainability.”
As we started to discuss this, it quickly became apparent that some of us had different definitions of “nonprofit sustainability.” And indeed, in the social change sector more broadly there is a long list of definitions of nonprofit sustainability.
Sometimes people use “nonprofit sustainability” to mean nonprofits moving away from private philanthropy and becoming self-sufficient through earned income sources (the sale of goods or services). I don’t believe that that is ever possible. Nonprofits are often borne as a response to a disequilibrium that the market created (income inequality, racial injustice, failing education). So it is rare that a nonprofit can figure out a way to make the market pay for something that it created. The vast majority of nonprofits will never be fully self-sustaining through earned income efforts; rather they will always be subsidized by non-earned sources, like philanthropy and government.
Others define “nonprofit sustainability” as the ability to attract multi-year, unrestricted funding. While that would be a positive step, foundations are largely the only nonprofit funding source able or willing to make unrestricted, multi-year commitments. Government funding is never unrestricted, and individuals rarely make multi-year commitments. And even if all foundation funders made these commitments, foundation funding only ever totals 2-3% of all of the revenue flowing to the nonprofit sector. So that’s not a big enough piece of the pie to ensure nonprofit sustainability.
Still others talk about “nonprofit sustainability” as having a diversified revenue stream. It may make sense for some nonprofits to focus on one or two revenue streams if that’s where their core competencies lie. So it is not a foregone conclusion that revenue diversification fits every nonprofit business model.
And other people define “nonprofit sustainability” as understanding and funding a nonprofit’s full costs, including direct and indirect costs. While this is absolutely a part of nonprofit sustainability, I don’t think it tells the whole story.
Therefore, none of these definitions of nonprofit sustainability satisfy me. They are either two narrow, too unrealistic, or inaccurate.
My definition, then, is:
Nonprofit sustainability occurs when a nonprofit attracts and effectively uses
enough and the right kinds of money necessary to achieve their long-term outcome goals.
So to break that down, nonprofit sustainability includes these elements:
Knowing Your Long-Term Outcome Goals
To be sustainable, a nonprofit must articulate the long-term outcomes that they are ultimately trying to accomplish (through a Theory of Change). You cannot hope to be sustainable if you can’t articulate why you exist and what you ultimately want to accomplish as a social change organization.
Having a Strategy to Achieve Those Goals
And you won’t achieve those outcomes (and be sustainable) if you don’t have a long-term strategy to get there. The strategy doesn’t have to be set in stone — it should be malleable as internal and external circumstances change — but it should ultimately guide your course to achieving those outcome goals.
Effectively Using Enough Money
But its not enough to simply plan for the future, you must then figure out what staff, board, volunteers, systems, technology, marketing, and other resources you need to bring your strategy to fruition. You must articulate the business model you will employ, and the corresponding money required, to realize your long-term outcome goals. And I don’t mean the band-aid version — I mean what it will really take to achieve the long-term outcomes you seek.
Attracting the Right Kinds of Money
But it’s also not enough to figure out what it’s going to cost. You have to figure out the other side of the money equation, which is how to bring that money in the door. A smart financial strategy attracts money that is the right fit for your organization. You have to be strategic (not reactive) about how money flows to the organization (fundraising, government grants, earned income). It might be that you focus solely on private sources, or you may have a mix of government and earned sources. But your financial model must align with your core competencies and your mission.
Nonprofit sustainability means that a nonprofit board and staff know what they want to accomplish, develop a smart strategy and business model, and use money as a tool to make it happen.
But nonprofit sustainability should not be up to just nonprofit leaders to figure out. Anyone who wants to realize social change (the government, private funders, social change leaders) must advocate for and support more sustainability in the sector. It must be a larger conversation. I hope that conversation grows far beyond the CEP conference in April.
Photo Credit: Philip Taylor
Whew, are you as exhausted as I am? As I said last month, with the January inauguration of President Trump, it seems we moved into hyper drive. And February didn’t slow down a bit. From debates about the right political role for nonprofits, to advocacy in new areas like science, to efforts to reinvent journalism, to new grassroots organizing campaigns, to new ways to think about marketing in the nonprofit sector, there was a lot going on in the world of social change.
Here is my pick of the 10 best reads in the world of nonprofits, philanthropy and social change in February. If you want a longer list, follow me on Twitter @nedgington. And check out past months’ 10 Great Reads lists here.
- A big contributor to the exhausting pace is the daily onslaught of new and shocking pronouncements from the Trump administration. One with a potentially huge impact on the nonprofit sector was Trump’s call for an end to the Johnson Amendment, which limits the election-related activity of nonprofits. Many argued that this would be a destructive development for the sector, from limiting the collaborative position of the sector, to moving philanthropy away from social change and toward politics, to contributing to an elimination of the charitable tax deduction, to increasing dark money contributions to political campaigns. But others disagreed arguing that repealing the Johnson Amendment would level the playing field with for-profits. As always, the HistPhil blog gives some much needed historical perspective on the issue.
- Another victim of Trump’s ire in February was the news media. Journalism has been struggling for years amid falling advertising revenues and a changing digital landscape. But it seems the Trump administration may just be the impetus the industry needs to reinvent itself. As Jeff Jarvis argued: “Now we reinvent journalism. Now we learn how to serve communities, listening to them to reflect their worldviews and gain their trust so we can inform them. Now we give up on the belief that we are entitled to act as gatekeeper and to set the agenda as well as the prices of information and advertising. Now we must learn to work well with others. Now we must bring diversity not just to our surviving newsrooms — which we must — but to the larger news ecosystem, building new, sustainable news services and businesses to listen to, understand, empathize with, and meet the needs of many communities.” And Nieman Lab hosted a conversation among journalists and editors from The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and The Huffington Post about the future of journalism. And Democracy Fund launched a cool new project, the Local News Lab, aimed at making local news more sustainable.
- In these uncertain times where many nonprofits are feeling under attack, advocacy has become a more important tool than ever. Writing in the Stanford Social Innovation Review, Jim Shultz offers some guiding questions for developing your nonprofit’s advocacy strategy.
- And speaking of new levels of advocacy, while scientists once strived to remain separate from politics, some scientists are finding themselves in the political arena just by investigating areas at odds with the Trump administration, like climate change. And some scientists created a network of scientists who could offer temporary space to U.S. scientists stranded overseas by the immigration ban.
- The Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies released a new online database that lets you slice and dice data on the U.S. nonprofit economy. Fascinating.
- Some nonprofits have enjoyed dramatic donation and follower increases as a result of the election. One of these, the ACLU has developed a pretty impressive social media strategy and plans for a much larger ground game. Similarly, Planned Parenthood is using their increased support to develop their grassroots organizing efforts.
- All of these efforts to resist the Trump Administration got David Brooks thinking about resistance movements throughout history and which might be most applicable now.
- Taz Hussein and Matt Plummer offered a wakeup call to social change leaders who think they don’t need to generate demand for their social change work: “It’s time [nonprofits] and their funders heed business findings on increasing noise in the marketplace and the need to make any new offering, even a life-saving one, stand out. In other words, they need to pay what it takes to actively drive demand.”
- And speaking of marketing in the nonprofit sector, Ann Christiano and Annie Neimand argued that nonprofits needs to stop “raising awareness” and instead create strategies for changing behavior: “Because abundant research shows that people who are simply given more information are unlikely to change their beliefs or behavior, it’s time for activists and organizations seeking to drive change in the public interest to move beyond just raising awareness. It wastes a lot of time and money for important causes that can’t afford to sacrifice either. Instead, social change activists need to use behavioral science to craft campaigns that use messaging and concrete calls to action that get people to change how they feel, think, or act, and as a result create long-lasting change.” Amen!
- Writing on the PhilanTopic blog, Kyle Crawford argued that chatbots — computer programs that conduct a conversation via voice or text — have a real role to play in social change, and nonprofits should become early adopters of this new technology.
Photo Credit: Max Pixel
It amazes me how many nonprofit leaders form their organizational strategy, their fundraising pitch, or their program model inside their nonprofit’s own walls. In order to be successful, you must understand the market in which you operate. And in order to understand it, you must go investigate it.
It is a simple fact that nonprofits must compete for funding, for clients, for volunteers, for staff, for board members, for mindshare, for policymaker will and commitment. So you must understand the market in which you work – what’s happening out there and how you fit in.
Ongoing market research can help you understand how your clients and potential clients think, what your funders want now and in the future, what your competitors and collaborators are doing and where they might be going, and how the very problems you exist to solve might be changing over time.
And there is another huge benefit to this data gathering — it forces you to expand and strengthen your network, because in the very act of finding out what’s happening outside your walls, you will forge new and deeper connections with others out there. So while market research should definitely be part of your long-term strategic planning process, it is also something you should continue to do on at least an annual basis.
Market research is where you test the assumptions baked into your work. You are seeking to find the answers to questions like:
- How are the efforts of other groups in our space changing over time?
- How are these other groups funded?
- What are their program delivery models?
- What are their plans for the future?
- Where are there opportunities for alliance?
- How do they define the social problems they are working on?
- What other social, technological, economic, demographic, political, regulatory shifts are happening outside our walls that might affect the problem(s) we are working on?
Of those people or groups you are trying to influence or benefit (like your clients) find out:
- What are the demographic (age, gender, race, ethnicity, income, etc.) characteristics of these groups?
- What are their psychographic (attitudes, interests, goals, etc.) characteristics?
- How can we best reach them and change their attitudes and/or behavior?
- What specific subsets of these populations can we have the greatest impact on?
- How might our various funding streams (government, earned income, private donations, etc.) change over time?
- What might our current or future funders want in the future?
- What appeals to them about our solution?
- What appeals to them about alternative solutions?
Before embarking on any market research, think through questions like these and figure out which are most applicable to your situation. This becomes your market research list.
Then determine how you will find the answers to those questions. Very few nonprofits can afford a comprehensive market study, so it will likely be up to your staff to do the digging. This can include activities like:
- Web research on your competitors, collaborators, funders.
- One-on-one interviews with current and potential funders, collaborators and competitors, experts in your field.
- Surveys of your current or potential clients, members, influencers, funders, volunteers.
- Review of existing research on the social issues on which you work.
And don’t assume that you will do this type of market research only once. Rather, you want to make it a regular part of operations (at least annually, if not more often), so it shouldn’t be overly burdensome. Make it easy and interesting for you and your staff to get beyond your walls and better understand the market in which you work.
Armed with new and ongoing knowledge about your market, you will be better able to design effective programs, attract additional support, articulate your nonprofit’s unique value, grow your network, and much more. So get out there!
Photo Credit: Ministry of Information Photo Division Photographer, Wartime Social Survey
A few weeks ago I wrote a post on a controversial topic, “How to Remove a Troublesome Board Member.” As I wrote in the post,
Of the many taboos in the nonprofit sector, the taboo against asking bad board members to resign is one of the most destructive. Instead of encouraging ineffective or meddling board members to move on, nonprofit leaders often show misplaced gratitude for those errant board members continuing to take up space.
Because it is such a taboo idea, I predictably received several emails, Tweets and comments in response to the post. The most thoughtful of which was from Tom Klaus, who wrote:
Like anyone who has ever led a nonprofit, I’ve wanted to make changes to my board to make everything run a lot better, and I can sympathize with the folks for whom your blog is intended. What I’d like to hear, though, are your thoughts on the legal and ethical aspects of a nonprofit leader making such changes to board.
In most states, the by-laws of a nonprofit organization establish the board of directors as the legal entity upon which the organization is established. The ED or CEO is typically not also a member of the board of directors, in my experience. Hence, there is a legal conundrum facing the leader. He or she may not have legal standing to make the changes to the board you are suggesting in your blog. Now, this is not to say, of course, that nonprofit leaders don’t try to do it anyway; only that doing so might provide the grounds for board members to significantly challenge and even release the nonprofit leader.
The ethical challenge this presents, I believe, is this: Is it ethical for a nonprofit leader to try to change the makeup of the group that hired her or him?
I think the most difficult governance challenge in a nonprofit organization is achieving the delicate balance between the power of the ED/CEO and the power of the Board of Directors. I’m sure we’ve both known organizations that have done this remarkably well, and they become high performing, heartily sustainable, and wildly successful in their work. I’m sure we’ve also both known organizations that just can’t seem to get the balance right.
One of my clients is like this latter. Over the years they have continued to fluctuate between too much power in the hands of the board and too much power in the hands of the ED/CEO. These are among the most unproductive times for them, of course. Just curious about your thinking on this.
Tom raises an excellent point. The nonprofit board of directors are and should be charged with the legal authority to hire and manage the nonprofit executive director. However, that does not mean that they are the only ones to possess the power to make changes in the leadership of the organization. It is important to understand that both board members and executive directors possess power but very different types of power.
In the 1950s two social psychologists, John French and Bertram Raven, defined a new way to think about the kinds of power people possess. They classified six bases of an individual’s social power:
- Reward Power is based on a person’s ability to give rewards
- Coercive Power is based on a person’s ability to give punishments
- Referent Power is based on a person’s ability to make others want to model his/her behavior
- Legitimate Power is based on a person’s official title or role
- Expert Power is based on a person’s expertise
- Informational Power is based on a person’s possession of specific content
Instead of the Legitimate Power that board members enjoy because of their legal title of “board member,” I was referring in my previous blog post to the Expert Power a nonprofit executive director can employ.
A nonprofit’s executive director possesses tremendous expertise in (to name a few):
- The mission, program delivery and results
- The organization’s strategy and goals
- The organization’s day-to-day work
- The skills, experience, networks needed on the board
- The resources (potential funding, strategic alliances) available to the organization
The most effective boards are those which are led by the Legitimate Power of the board chair and her committee chairs, paired with the Expert Power of the executive director. Because the reality is that as a group of volunteers who have many more pressing items on their to do list, a board of directors rarely functions at their best when left to their own devices.
Therefore the executive director can and should play a critical role in helping the board leadership to assemble the type of board that will help move the mission forward. This includes:
- Helping the board to analyze the board skills, experience and networks necessary to deliver on the strategic plan
- Identifying potential new recruits to fill those gaps
- Helping to structure the board to be most productive
- Meeting one-on-one with board members annually to determine where and how they can be most helpful to the mission
- Working with the board chair to hold board members accountable and ask them to resign when necessary
While the nonprofit executive director does not have Legitimate Power because, as Tom rightly points out, she serves at the behest of the board of directors, she can and should wield Expert Power to help assemble and manage a board that can be instrumental in the nonprofit achieving it’s mission and being sustainable.
To learn more about how to do that, download the 10 Traits of a Groundbreaking Board book.
Photo Credit: 24×7 Photo
Note: In April I will be moderating a panel at the Center for Effective Philanthropy Conference about what funders can do to support nonprofit sustainability. To promote that panel and the conference, the Center for Effective Philanthropy asked me to write a post for their blog, which is reprinted below. You can see the original post at the CEP blog here.
Among the many myths that pervade the nonprofit sector, the Overhead Myth is perhaps the most destructive. It is the erroneous idea that nonprofits must keep their fundraising and administrative costs cripplingly low, which leads to anemic organizations that are not as effective as they could be.
In fact, the disparity between the nonprofit and for-profit sector in investment in strong organizations is striking. As just one example, research from the Foundation Center found that in 2011, the business sector spent $12 billion on leadership development, whereas the nonprofit sector spent $400 million. Or, viewed another way, businesses spent $120 per employee on leadership development, whereas the nonprofit sector spent $29 per employee.
But the reality is that nonprofit organizations are no different than for-profit organizations in terms of overhead. Last summer a Bridgespan study analyzed the indirect costs of 20 different nonprofit organizations and found, not surprisingly, that overhead rates vary greatly depending on the business model and industry of a given organization (just as it does in the for-profit sector).
Some nonprofit, philanthropic, and government leaders are recognizing that we must move beyond the Overhead Myth and start building stronger nonprofit organizations. This is partly due to the Overhead Myth campaign, launched in 2014 by GuideStar, CharityNavigator, and BBB Wise Giving Alliance with their famous “Letter to the Donors of America” and follow up “Letter to the Nonprofits of America,” which argue that nonprofit leaders and funders must stop judging nonprofits by their overhead rate — and instead focus on a nonprofit’s results. So the idea is that instead of evaluating the effectiveness of a nonprofit organization based on how it spends money, funders would move to evaluate the effectiveness of a nonprofit based on the results it achieves.
This campaign has gained some traction. The federal government and some local governments have moved to increase the indirect costs paid to nonprofits, which means more money for things beyond direct program costs.
But unfortunately, we are far from overcoming the Overhead Myth. An article just this month in Philanthropy Daily extoled the virtues of the Salvation Army because “the most effective nonprofits are those with lean management. The Salvation Army is a constructive example of an effective charity with very low overhead.” And a recent article in Forbes profiled five nonprofit leaders advising other nonprofit leaders about how to keep overhead costs low.
There is still much work to be done in recognizing the need for and investing in strong, effective nonprofit organizations.
Which is where progressive funders, like those who will be attending the 2017 CEP Conference in Boston in April, come in. If a critical mass of funders could start supporting nonprofits to create strong and effective organizations, we could perhaps overcome the Overhead Myth once and for all.
But what does that look like? In my mind, funders can lead the effort to eradicate the Overhead Myth by:
- Working with their nonprofit grantees to uncover the full costs of their work. Instead of hiding or severely limiting non-program costs, nonprofit leaders must fully analyze, report on, and fund ALL of the expenses necessary to achieve results.
- Uncovering the capacity constraints that impact their grantees. Funders must actively work with their grantees to determine what is standing in the way of building stronger, more effective organizations — and then fund the solutions to those hurdles.
- Moving from program-specific funding to unrestricted, general operating support of the organization.
- Investing in the revenue-generating functions of their grantees. It takes money to create mission, so we need more investments in sustainable financial models, which includes (among other things) smart plan development, recruitment of effective revenue-generating staff, and training of board members on their role in the financial model.
The good news is that there are already funders who are doing these things. For example, there is the collaboration of California grantmakers who lead the Real Cost Project aimed at helping grantmakers understand “what it would take to fund the real costs of the organizations they support — that is all of the necessary investments for a nonprofit organization to deliver on mission and to be sustainable over the long term.”
So to help move this conversation and work further, I will be moderating a breakout session at the 2017 CEP Conference titled “Supporting Nonprofit Sustainability,” where Jacob Harold, president and CEO of GuideStar, Vu Le, nonprofit blogger and executive director of Rainier Valley Corps, and Pia Infante, co-executive director of The Whitman Institute, will be discussing how foundations can start advocating for and investing in stronger, more effective nonprofit organizations.
If nonprofits and those who fund them could overcome the Overhead Myth once and for all, it could be a watershed moment for social change. It would be the point at which we move from a nonprofit sector that is just trying to get by to a nonprofit sector that is armed with the people, infrastructure, and systems necessary to deliver on lasting social change.
I hope you’ll join us for what promises to be an exciting conversation.
Photo Credit: Mike Baird
The other day I was talking with a nonprofit leader and was suddenly struck by how much his story echoed so many of the stories I hear from nonprofit leaders.
See if your nonprofit fits some or all aspects of the scenario he faces:
- His board is passionate about the mission and wants to be helpful, but they don’t really contribute much to the financial model.
- His staff and board want to expand services, but they can’t grow their budget past where it has been for years.
- Their funding is fairly dependent on just a couple of sources.
- Their funders support specific projects, rather than the organization or mission as a whole.
- Their strategic plan hasn’t been updated in 5 years.
- The board worries whether some of what the nonprofit does duplicates other efforts out there.
- Board and staff don’t have a common way to articulate what the nonprofit is and does.
- Their nonprofit is just barely getting by and has no cash reserves.
They, like so many nonprofits, are stuck in a rut.
They want to accomplish something much bigger and better but continue to spin their wheels against what they have always done. It’s really a chicken or the egg scenario. A nonprofit is unable to grow their services, their board, and their supporters because the organization has limited resources. And so they keep soldiering on, same as it ever was.
But let’s face it folks, in times like these, the status quo just isn’t going to work anymore.
Luckily, there is a way out.
When I encounter a nonprofit leader like the one above who has a real desire to break out of this pattern, I suggest a Financial Model Assessment. A Financial Model Assessment analyzes every aspect of the organization (Mission, Vision, Strategy, Program Delivery and Impact, Staffing, Board, Marketing, External Partnerships) in order to understand how each element helps or hurts their financial sustainability and their ability to achieve results. It then analyzes all current and potential revenue streams to find opportunities for sustainable growth. Finally, the Assessment gives very detailed recommendations for creating a more effective and sustainable organization.
I am a firm believer in a holistic approach. You simply cannot bemoan a lack of financial resources and call it a day. You must dig deep and figure out how everything you do contributes to or detracts from your current reality.
But because nonprofit leaders are usually consumed by putting out fires and worrying when the next check will come, they don’t have the ability to take a big step back and figure out how all of the pieces can and should fit together. So a Financial Model Assessment allows a nonprofit board and staff to understand what is holding their organization back from becoming financially sustainable AND achieving more mission-related results.
Once I’ve written my final Assessment, I lead a change discussion among board and staff. We delve into the Assessment and discuss how and why I came to the conclusions I did. This is often a galvanizing moment for the nonprofit — a moment when board and staff finally understand together a way forward that can allow them to be smarter, more strategic, more sustainable and ultimately achieve more results.
If you are interested in big change and need help navigating how to get there, download the Financial Model Assessment Benefit Sheet that describes the process in more detail. And if you’d like to read about other nonprofits who undertook a change process, check out these case studies.
Photo Credit: Public domain via Wikimedia
One thing that most nonprofit leaders have in common is that they often have at least one (or more than one) challenging board member. You know — the one who doesn’t show up for board meetings, or doesn’t do what she says she’ll do, or never makes a contribution, or derails meetings with his own agenda.
But do you ever kick them off? I doubt it.
Of the many taboos in the nonprofit sector, the taboo against asking bad board members to resign is one of the most destructive. Instead of encouraging ineffective or meddling board members to move on, nonprofit leaders often show misplaced gratitude for those errant board members continuing to take up space.
But the real risk in keeping a troublesome board member is that his presence will put a cloud over the rest of the board, hampering your higher performing members.
So instead of letting the sickness spread, you must address it. And here’s how:
Be Clear on Your Expectations
You can’t ask someone to resign if you’ve never explicitly told them what you expect of them, so make sure that you have each board member sign a roles and responsibilities document at the beginning of each fiscal year. This spells out exactly what you are expecting from them (in terms of meeting attendance, committee service, fundraising, etc.). The act of having each board member (even those returning from the previous year) sign this annually cements in everyone’s mind exactly what is expected. Better yet, have them sign it as part of your annual one-on-one meetings with each board member.
Tell Them They Aren’t Performing
Managing a board is very similar to managing a staff (or managing your children, let’s be honest). Once you set very clear expectations, then update them along the way about whether or not they are performing effectively. When a board member isn’t showing up for meetings, or is meddling where they shouldn’t, or isn’t meeting their give/get requirement, or is taking committee discussions in unhelpful directions, sit down with that board member (and your board chair and/or your board governance chair) to explain the situation from your perspective and ask them to explain their side.
Give Them One Last Chance
Once you’ve told them they aren’t performing the way you would like, agree on a path to improvement. Decide together what an improved performance looks like (attend all upcoming board meetings, meet the give/get requirement) and the deadline (3 months from now) to get there. It is your job to hold them accountable, so as that deadline approaches, analyze their performance to see if they did what they said they would.
Ask Them to Go
If the deadline comes and they still haven’t performed adequately, sit down with the errant board member and your board chair and explain that while you would love for them to stay on as an informal advisor and supporter, you are asking them to resign to make room for a board member who can fulfill their commitment to the organization. Explain the importance of the work your organization does and how critical it is that you have fully committed and contributing board members. Describe how this is probably best for them as well because it frees them up to focus more energy on the things that are taking them away. If you are truly allergic to confrontation, and this still seems too hard, read Crucial Conversations.
Contain Any Fallout
When asked to resign, not all board members will go quietly into the night. As soon as you’ve asked your troublesome board member to leave, tell the rest of the board what you all have done and why. Help them to understand how this is a positive step for the organization and how it will help further your larger mission. Ask for their support in seeing this decision through, and most importantly, tell them what the next step is.
Find a Replacement
And that next step is to find that board member’s replacement. Beyond the fear of confrontation, many nonprofit leaders are hesitant to ask a board member to resign because they fear they won’t find another warm body to replace that member. But board recruitment should be an ongoing and strategic exercise. Your board governance committee should be constantly analyzing the board matrix of skills, experience, and networks in order to see where holes lie and identifying and vetting new potential candidates. Then when a board member leaves (or is asked to leave) you have several great new candidates in mind.
Stop selling your nonprofit short by letting disengaged, uncommitted, or meddlesome board members get in your way. By setting clear expectations, measuring performance, being honest, and constantly identifying new candidates, you can build a much stronger, more effective and engaged board of directors.
If you want to learn more about building a great board, download the 10 Traits of a Groundbreaking Board book.
Photo Credit: Jane Davees
One of my predicted “5 Nonprofit Trends to Watch in 2017” is that we will see “More Analysis of What Nonprofit Financial Sustainability Requires.” In other words, I think (hope) in this new year that nonprofit leaders and their funders will work to figure out how to make nonprofits more financial sustainable.
Financial sustainability means that both the way money comes in the door (revenue) and the way money goes out the door (expenses) happen in a smart, strategic way. When they do, you have a robust financial model.
In my mind, one of the first steps toward that sustainability is for nonprofit leaders to look inward. While there are many reasons for the financial instability that plagues the nonprofit sector — from the Overhead Myth, to restricted funding, to lack of financial training — nonprofit leaders sometimes perpetuate the dysfunction themselves with an unhealthy attitude toward money.
Nonprofit leaders must embrace money as a tool — rather than a scourge — that can help them better achieve their mission.
So in this new year, in order to get closer to financial sustainability in your own nonprofit, I challenge you to ask yourself these questions about money:
- Do I embrace money as a tool to achieve our mission?
As the ultimate cheerleader of your nonprofit’s board and staff, you must ask whether you yourself fully embrace money. Money has long been viewed as a necessary evil in the nonprofit sector. We don’t want too much of it (for fear of scaring off donors); we don’t want to ask people for it (for fear of rejection); we don’t want to make our board go out and get it (for fear they will bolt). But it is your role as leader of your nonprofit to eschew those outdated notions and instead recognize that a smart, well-executed money strategy can be instrumental to achieving your mission.
- Do we know our actual costs?
Not just the full costs to run each of your programs (which is important), but the overall costs of executing on your strategic plan. I can’t tell you how many nonprofit leaders I meet who a) don’t have a strategic plan in place or b) if they do, they haven’t tied it to money. You simply will not accomplish anything if you don’t analyze and plan for what it will truly cost to accomplish your goals as an organization. So start by using this Bridgespan tool to figure out the full costs of your programs and then add to that the other organizational and infrastructure costs necessary to achieve your overall strategic goals.
- Do we have a financial model?
So that’s how money flows out of the organization, but to fully flesh out your financial model you need to plan for how money will flow into the organization. The funny thing about money is that if you are smarter and more strategic about it, you will attract more of it. So instead of hoping and praying that enough money will show up at your doorstep, create an overall financial strategy that includes your tactics for how you will attract each applicable revenue line (individuals, foundations, corporations, government, and/or earned income) that flows into your financial model.
- Does our board understand and contribute to our financial model?
Once you’ve figured out your financial model, you must get your board fully involved in it. A nonprofit will never be financially sustainable if money is left solely to the staff to figure out. That means the board needs to understand revenue and expenses, over the long-term, and how they apply to the overall strategy of the organization. And it is not enough for them just to understand it, they must contribute (in many and various ways) to the successful implementation of that financial model.
- Do we ask funders to support the effective execution of our financial model?
You can’t just have a great financial strategy on paper, you also need to invest in the structure and systems necessary to execute on that strategy. That means you have to hire talented money-raising staff, acquire functional technology, develop capable donor systems, create compelling marketing and communications. Those elements make up your money-raising function, and in order to make it effective you have to invest in those elements. So figure out what that will cost and convince some funders to pay for it.
It’s time to get over your money issues. You will not achieve financial sustainability unless you fully embrace money as a critical conduit to the social change you seek.
Photo Credit: Daniel Borman