Mission Achievable: Better Boards, Better Management, Better Fundraising

Good morning, and thank you for continuing to follow The Alford Group here and elsewhere!

This morning I wanted to share a little with you about our new video series for Executive Directors, Development Directors, and Boards.

For the last year, I and my colleagues have been working on a video training series that will help to strengthen all aspects of a not-for-profit’s governance, management, and fundraising.  This idea came to us through conversations with people working in the not-for-profit sector, and has come to fruition through collaboration with 501 Videos, makers of Movie Mondays.

The video series is called Mission Achievable: Better Boards, Better Management, Better Fundraising.  It is an interactive video series that trains the Executive Director, the Development Director, and the Board all separately.  We cover six major topics of concern for not-for-profits (plus a few others), including:

• Good Governance
• Strategic Planning
• Annual Fund Planning
• Creating a Fundraising Board
• Major Gifts (Parts 1 and 2)

We also included some bonus material on Social Media and Attracting and Retaining your Team.

In addition to the videos, which are designed for use over 6 months, we will also offer monthly webinars, one for each topic, led by the same consultant who leads that video.  You will have the opportunity, on a monthly basis, to consult The Alford Group on any questions you have related to that month’s topic.  On top of that, we will be taking your questions on the forum set up for members only, where you can consult The Alford Group as well as your peers in the not-for-profit industry.

This is a first of its kind video series, one we are sure will be immensely helpful for any not-for-profit that wants to improve communication between the Executive Director, Development Director, and Board, and wants to continue to improve upon steps already being taken to build capacity.

I am incredibly excited to be able to be able to offer this opportunity to our current and former clients who are such a valued part of our organization.  And for those of you who have never been involved with The Alford Group, I’m excited that you would consider engaging us in this way.

These pre-release videos will give you more information about the videos, as well as an idea of what to expect from the series.  In all four pre-release videos, we offer you tools you can use today to strengthen your board, communicate more effectively with your leadership team, and fundraise by NOT fundraising.

Please watch the videos, and consider taking The Alford Group on as a partner in strengthening your organization over the next six months.  Mission Achievable goes on sale today, and, as this series is time-sensitive, the sale ends October 7.  We hope you’ll join us on this journey.

Best,

Tom

The Alford Group in Movie Mondays

Our Senior Vice President and Midwest Division Manager, Brenda Asare, was featured this week in 501 Video’s Movie Monday! To see Brenda’s video, click here. If you haven’t already signed up for Movie Mondays, they are a great way to get insight from your colleagues in the not-for-profit world on issues from governance to major gifts to best practices in fundraising.

And here’s what Chris Davenport, creator of Movie Mondays, had to say about Brenda’s video:

Are your board members enthusiastic to come to board meetings?In this week’s movie, Brenda B. Asare from The Alford Group talks about how board meetings are being run differently to better engage their members and to be more effective. She has several ideas you may want to incorporate if you’re not already doing so.

 

The Alford Group is also working on another, top-secret project with 501 Videos, which will be released in a few weeks. Check back in with us to find out how you can get involved in our latest project.

Taxes – Why should we pay them?

Thank you to those who commented on my thoughts last week.  You had good comments and ideas.  Let me spend a few moments expanding on the recent difficulties in Washington DC due to a lack of “collaboration” and the inability to get an agreement on expanding the debt ceiling.  Hopefully we will see that impasse come to an end today or tomorrow with what could be a palatable bill for both parties.

There is a segment of the American society very adverse to taxes.  Now, I do not like paying taxes (who does?) – whenever I get my pay check I always wonder what I could do with even half the money that is deducted in social security and Federal income tax.  And then reality sets in.

When I look at my life style – a two income family with the kids grown and gone – the amount we get to keep is a pretty good amount.  We live in a nice house; we were able to send our three kids to the college of their choice; and it looks like we should be able to retire in a few years feeling comfortable and secure.  Isn’t that the American financial dream?  And if I paid a thousand dollars more a year in taxes would that change?  Probably not!

Currently 20% of Americans control 84% of all assets in this country – I believe this segment of society has prospered and will continue to prosper if they more in taxes.

What are we getting for all those taxes that are being paid?  When I stop and consider – we are getting a lot.

Is there waste in government?  Undoubtedly.  Is there more benefit than waste?  Yes, by a thousand fold.  I have been fortunate to experience the benefits of good government programs on a multitude of levels:

1. The first experience was in high school when my father needed significant surgery and was out of work for 8 months.  Social Security made payments to my sister and me while my mother worked full time and also took care of my Dad.  Without those payments during that 8 month period, we would have lost everything.
2. I am a veteran and I bought my first house on the VA Bill.  Without that, I would not have been able to get into the housing market when I did.  In addition, I saw firsthand the needs of military families during my time in the service and whatever we do for military families – we could always do more.  Those families and individuals give so much so that we can live in peace.
3. Having spent a career in the not-for-profit sector – in the social services, in healthcare and now in consulting – everyday I see the good work so many not-for-profits do day in and day out.  So many people helped – so many young people given guidance – wonderful things in education – so many new healthcare breakthroughs – wonderful artistic experiences that bring a ‘richness’ to life – overseas issues around shelter, healthcare, food, and water – time and time again our lives are improved across all segments of society due to not-for-profits, many of which receive significant government funds and would not be able to do what they do without the government funds.

The above three examples are one persons observations – and there are many, many more examples of good things that happen every day because we all pay out taxes.

As we look at the potential collaboration between people in Congress, tax increases have to be part of the equation.  When Bill Clinton balanced the budget in his final two years in office, we had a more “balanced” tax policy.  When George Bush took office, we engaged in two wars and lowered taxes.  What were we thinking?  Whenever we went to war in the past we raised taxes to pay for the war.

Yes, we need to cut spending and yes we need to raise taxes – too many good things are happening in the not-for-profit community and throughout our country to cut taxes and also cut spending.

All the best,

Tom

Collaboration is Easy to Discuss and Difficult to Do

Every day the news carries another story about the work in Washington, DC to negotiate a deal on the debt limit and serious debt reduction activities.  The issues are familiar – potential spending reductions and potential tax increases.  One side will not budge from its position of no new taxes – and the other will not budge on its position of achieving results with new taxes and limited spending reductions.  We know they need to collaborate to solve this – yet they are providing a good example of what collaboration is not. Over the next few weeks we will discover if they do learn the meaning of the word.

In the meantime, in our own communities, we have the ability to collaborate every day – and yet in the not-for-profit world I tend to see more competition than collaboration.  How can we set an example to work with other not-for-profit organizations that have similar missions, values, and services?  Is there a chance to provide improved services to the community utilizing fewer resources and thus improving efficiencies?  Do organizations ever attempt to discover the answer to these questions?

In several cities across America there have been attempts to collaborate on back office services among not-for-profit groups.  There has been collaboration on motor vehicles, insurance, human resources, facilities, training, and financial book keeping.  Could there be more?  If not for a number of barriers to collaboration, I believe it would be even more common.

Usually collaboration brings some initial costs – some of them financial – and some of them emotional.  The financial cost is typically an upfront expenditure – or an investment in establishing the systems to collaborate – though these should bring a long term reduction in costs thus providing efficiencies for the future.  The barrier to moving forward on this collaboration is the dollar amount of the initial investment.

Or maybe the barrier is the willingness to sit down and discover if savings can truly be made.  This is the emotional investment of time and energy – and may require the ability to let go of “control” of an aspect of the organization.  This emotional investment may, for some, be harder than the financial investment.

The above examples refer to back office or support services – and not to program delivery.  Collaboration on program delivery can become an even more difficult task.  But there are plenty of examples of effective program delivery through collaboration as well.

Two of my children attended Whitworth University in Spokane, WA, which is also the home of the more famous Gonzaga University.  The two schools had a very good reciprocal program where students could take a course at the other university, at no extra cost, if it was not offered at their primary university.  There were limits of course, but I found this collaboration well worthwhile for the universities and the students.  I am also aware that other institutions of higher learning across the country have similar programs, though education is not the only sector involved in collaboration.

Over the next six months think about ways you could collaborate with another not-for-profit and begin a dialogue for how that might be accomplished – be it back office or program related.  What examples have you witnessed in the past or recently?  What were the results? What ideas would you like to try?  Is there another organization you could work with to implement these ideas?  Share your suggestions for and experiences in collaboration here.  I am sure that untried opportunities abound!

All the best,

Tom

The Unfortunate Lure of Small Not-For-Profit Governing Boards

Over the past several years, many not-for-profits have begun to shrink their boards to sizes ranging from 9 to 12 people.  Both board and staff leaders have argued that a smaller board is more productive and easier to manage.  This model seems to be coming from the for-profit board where smaller boards are the norm (comparably) and chief executives are also the board chair (though this trend is changing as more corporate boards are choosing an independent director to be the chair of the board).

I would contend that the size of the board should be based on the amount of community engagement the organization wishes to have.  If a not-for-profit organization does not require significant community engagement then it does not need to structure itself with a large amount of community interaction.  However, if philanthropy is to play a role in the organization, then community engagement at the volunteer leadership level is essential.

When I look across the country at those organizations that raise significant amounts of money year in and year out, I notice that the size of their boards is significantly larger than 9 to 12 people.  Even if they have a “partner” foundation leading the fundraising activity for the organization (which expands engagement opportunities significantly), the governing board is typically 18 people or more.  The trend to smaller boards stifles community engagement and limits the amount of connections with key philanthropic constituents.

Why do organizations want smaller boards?  They are easier to manage.  Larger boards, to be productive and effective, require much more work on the part of staff and board leadership.  With a smaller board the need for committees goes away, as much of the work can be conducted through “a committee of the whole” at a board meeting.  My observations are that many boards allow too much detail to be discussed at board meetings when they do committee work at the board level, and thus, in a drive to become more productive, they lapse into a discussion that makes them less productive.

I was doing a presentation to a not-for-profit board, at the request of one of the board members and the executive director, on why they needed to expand their membership and create committees.  One of the board members challenged my thinking saying they were very productive, and though that might work elsewhere, they were just fine.  After I finished my presentation, I stayed for the remainder of the meeting.  During the course of the agenda, they discussed an upcoming special event, spending 20 minutes on the save the date card!  I could not contain myself and spoke up about why they had spent so much time on such a trivial matter.  This is work that could have been better accomplished by a committee.

Here is my short list of benefits of a larger board:

Expanded involvement of significant constituents

• More diversity of representation and opinion
• Opportunity to build stronger committees and discuss issues at the committee level in more detail (and to also engage potential board members as committee members)
• Allows for more strategic and generative discussions at the board meetings
• Creates an atmosphere where the board is governing the organization and not senior staff
• Allows for senior staff to grow professionally through their work in staffing committees (preparing them for the day when they will lead a not-for-profit organization)
• Builds trust between board members that a specific committee handles the details well, and board decisions can focus on committee recommendations more quickly thus moving the organization along at a faster pace
• And of course, more engagement of community leadership and community constituencies, fosters greater philanthropic opportunity

What are your observations and experience?  Do you think smaller boards are better?  How should committees be organized?  What committees do you think are essential?  I look forward to reading your responses.

All the best,

Tom