COMBINED FEDERAL CAMPAIGN (CFC) 

WILL HARM NON-PROFITS IF IMPLEMENTED AS PROPOSED

By Bill Huddleston, The CFC Coach, billhuddleston@verizon.net, 703-434-9780

NON-PROFITS WHO CARE ABOUT THE SINGLE LARGEST SOURCE OF UNRESTRICTED FUNDS IN USA – THE COMBINED FEDERAL CAMPAIGN – PLEASE READ AND COMMENT TO SAVE THE CFC!

HOW TO COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED COMBINED FEDERAL CAMPAIGN REGULATIONS

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has proposed massive changes to how the Combined Federal Campaign works.  There are more than 40 pages of proposed regulations, and my analysis of the changes can be found at the SAVETHECFC Linked-In Group and on my blog at www.cfctreasures.wordpress.com.  There is a public comment period for all proposed government regulations, and the comment period concerning the Combined Federal Campaign proposed regulations closes June 7, 2013.

There are two ways to comment:  Send a written letter to the OPM’s Director of the Combined Federal Campaign, Keith Willingham or submit your comments via the electronic comment function of the Federal Register.   My recommendation is to use the Federal Register method because other members of the non-profit community will also be able to see your comments.

Subject: RIN 3206-AM68, Solicitation of Federal Civilian and Uniformed Service Personnel for Contributions to Private Voluntary Organizations

Reference Number: RIN 3206-AM68

Dates:    OPM must receive comments on or before June 7, 2013

URL: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/04/08/2013-08017/solicitation-of-federal-civilian-and-uniformed-service-personnel-for-contributions-to-private

Shorter URL:   https://federalregister.gov/a/2013-08017

Here’s one example of a proposed change that will have negative impacts on CFC charities,  the Federal CFC donor, and most importantly the people that receive the services from the many CFC charities.

 Example of a Proposed Regulation Missing the Mark with wide negative consequences:

“Shifting the Campaign” is NOT the same as “Extending”

In the CFC-50 Commission
meetings there were many people and organizations that spoke to the benefit of extending the campaign to January 15^th from the current December 15^th end.  There are many reasons for this, including both year-end charitable giving and federal personnel schedules.

In watching all eight hours of video testimony, reading all the recommendations and appendices in the CFC-50 report, not a single person said “Shift the Campaign” from September to December to October to January.    “Shifting” is not the same as “extending” and there are many negative consequences to shifting, which I will describe in detail in later posts, but since there was no mention of this at all in 4 public meetings over many months, the idea was not addressed.

Will Cut CFC Revenues in Half:

If implemented as proposed these untested changes will have the effect of cutting CFC revenues for thousands of CFC charities in half, which is what has happened when such massive changes have been tried at the in workplace giving campaigns at the city and state level.  To see how much revenue was raised in your state through the CFC, please see this worksheet I created showing the state by state totals. http://cfctreasures.wordpress.com/2013/05/02/combined-federal-campaign-2012-results-by-state

If you have questions or concerns about how you can help save the CFC as one of the most useful programs for millions of Americans who benefit from the $260 million dollars generated annually by the CFC, please don’t hesitate to contact me at BillHuddleston@verizon.net or by phone at 703-434-9780.

Most of the proposed changes are  bad – These measures Throw Out the Baby with the Bathwater, and toss the tub on top for good measure.

Bill Huddleston, The CFC Coach, said that “The proposed changes to the Combined Federal Campaign (CFC) regulations will have the effect of destroying the CFC for small non-profits, whether they are local or national.”

The CFC Regulations as proposed will not help CFC charities, donors, or the people the CFC non-profits serve.  In addition, huge areas of importance are not addressed at all in the proposed regulations, including the value of the CFC to the sponsoring agencies and their employees.

The regulations were published on April 7^th in the Federal Register, and there is a 60 day comment period which ends June 7^th.  In other posts I will show you how to use the Federal Register commenting software, but if you think the CFC is worth saving, now is the time to act!

Will Cut CFC Revenues in Half

As proposed, these regulations completely eliminate the face to face aspect of the entire CFC campaign. If implemented as proposed these untested changes will have the effect of cutting CFC revenues for thousands of CFC charities in half, which is what has happened when such massive changes have been tried at the in workplace giving campaigns at the city and state level.  To see how much revenue was raised in your state through the CFC, please see this worksheet I created showing the state by state totals.  (see separate post)

After 50 years of being the most successful workplace giving program in the world, and the single largest source of unrestricted funds for non-profits, these proposed changes “throw the baby out with the bathwater, and then toss the tub on top for good measure!”

Massive Changes Proposed Without Adequate Discussion

The changes planned the proposed regulations are gigantic, and the proposed regulations make mistakes along the classic “New Coke” marketing debacle, when after much discussion about how to improve Coke, classic Coke was pulled from the market, and the cry went up, “Wait, you didn’t tell us you planned to destroy Coca-Cola!”

That’s the effect these new regulations will have, they will destroy the CFC, which is the single largest source of unrestricted funds for non-profits in the US.   The proposed regulations contain an odd mish mash of sweeping changes with no specifics on how the changes will actually be accomplished, wipes out organizations that have been in existence for more than 50 years, and especially in time of sequestration, are divorced from reality, because in order to actually implement them, there would need to be ten times increase in the number of Federal employees working on the CFC.

CFC – 50 Commission

A little background is in order, the CFC celebrated its 50^th Anniversary in 2011, and at that time the head of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), John Berry,  formed a commission, called the CFC-50 Commission, to look at ways to improve the CFC and keep it vibrant for the next 50 years.  The Commission was chaired by two former members of Congress, Hon. Tom Davis, (R-VA) and Hon. Beverly Byron, (D-MD), each of whom is well respected in the Federal service, and had served on government operations committees during their Congressional tenure.

CFC -50 Commission Public Meeting Videos (on Youtube)

The CFC-50 Commission met in public meetings four different times, and videos of these meeting are available at opm.gov/cfc.  http://www.opm.gov/combined-federal-campaign/cfc-50-commission (see list of videos at bottom of page).

The videos are difficult to watch because they are not optimized for viewing, there are no captions identifying who is speaking, and the speakers usually don’t identify themselves.  Some of them have 10 minute spans where the sound is inaudible.   There was testimony by invited participants, e.g. representatives from some of the larger charities, etc.

CFC – 50 Commission Report – 24 Recommendations

The Commission then produced their recommendations in a report, “Federal Advisory Commission Report on the Combined Federal Campaign” in July 2012, which contained 24 recommendations.

http://www.opm.gov/combined-federal-campaign/cfc-50-commission/2012-report.pdf

Two Good Recommendations

Some of these 24 recommendations survived intact in the proposed regulations, and some of them are good and make perfect sense, such as the ones dealing with new employees and the one dealing with disaster relief charities.

Many Proposed Regulations Do NOT Follow the Recommendations of the CFC-50 Commission

Many of the proposed regulations simply miss the mark from what the CFC-50 Commission actually recommended, had no or inadequate discussion about how some functions would actually be accomplished, and others are petty, or petty and unconstitutional.

Example of a Regulation Missing the Mark with wide negative consequences:

“Shifting the Campaign” is NOT the same as “Extending”

In the CFC-50 Commission meetings there were many people and organizations that spoke to the benefit of extending the campaign to January 15^th from the current December 15^th end.  There are many reasons for this, including both year-end charitable giving and federal personnel schedules.

In watching all eight hours of video testimony, reading all the recommendations and appendices in the CFC-50 report, not a single person said “Shift the Campaign” from September to December to October to January.    “Shifting” is not the same as “extending” and there are many negative consequences to shifting, which I will describe in detail in later posts, but since there was no mention of this at all in 4 public meetings over many months, the idea was not addressed.

The Proposed Regulations can be found here:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2013-08017.pdf.

In later posts, I will have information on how to use the Federal Register rule making portal to make comments.

Thanks,

Bill Huddleston

The CFC Coach

billhuddleston@verizon.net

703-443-9780.

Huddleston said, “The CFC is actually one of the largest volunteer programs in the country, and that in addition to the thanking the donors that contribute to a particular charity, that there are thousands of federal volunteers who each fall work together to run successful workplace giving campaigns in their agencies.   It’s absolutely fitting during National Volunteer Week to honor all the program and fundraising volunteers that help make the American non-profit sector the most vital in the world.”

Through the CFC, federal public servants have given more than $1 billion of their money to thousands of local, national and international charities over the past five years.  In terms of actual giving, if the CFC were a foundation it would be the 14^th largest foundation in the United States.

All CFC funds are unrestricted which means that the CFC is the single largest source of unrestricted funds for non-profit in the world.  The general rule of thumb in the non-profit world is that unrestricted funds are three times as valuable as restricted funds.

Some of the articles about the CFC results have focused on the drop in donations, Huddleston said, “What should be recognized is that even after three years of pay freezes, and bashing by politicians that Federal public servants know that the contributions they make through the CFC really do make a difference.”

The study done by the Chronicle of Philanthropy about the different levels of giving in the country is informative and interesting, but there are limitations inherent in tackling such a large and complicated subject.  The first limitation is that since the study limited itself to taxpayers who itemize (in general, households earning more than $50,000) it ignores the level of generosity by households that don’t itemize on their tax returns, so I think all the statistics probably under report the actual level of American generosity.

The second problem is the one of comparing religious giving versus secular giving, which is at best an apples to oranges comparison, and in reality is an “apple-orange” to “orange-apple” comparison, by which I mean that there are elements of both in each type of giving.  Sometimes when I read posts about religious giving in the non-profit forums, I really get the impression that the writers never attended Sunday School, and don’t really fundamentally understand how churches operate.  If the principles of non-profit fundraising are applied to religious giving, it would be considered an abject failure and ludicrous.  I can only speak about practices typical in Protestant denominations, but let’s take a look at it through the non-profit fundraising lens and you’ll see how ridiculous it looks from that perspective:

1. We will solicit our members in person 60 times per year.   There are 52 weeks of worship services, plus about 8 special offerings throughout the year (Christmas, Easter, One Great Hour of Sharing, etc.)
2. We will publicly ask for your contribution in front of other people. (It’s called passing the plate during the offering).
3. We will not provide individual thank yous (we will offer group thank yous).
4. We expect you to fill out a card at the start of each year (a pledge) where you specify how much you will give each week/month/year.  This is not really optional, and we will make a big show of you publicly turning in your pledge cards as part of the offering process.

If as a consultant on non-profit fundraising I presented that plan to one of my clients, I’d be laughed at the room, and probably never invited back.

Here’s what the difference is: Religious giving is not a charitable solicitation, it is an act of worship, and hence has a different set of social norms and customs.  By definition, becoming a member of a church requires a “leap of faith” and the purpose of this essay is not to debate why someone chooses to become a member of a congregation, and why someone else does not.  Each person makes their own choice about that.

Here are some examples of how there are elements of both secular and religious giving in each category.  The Salvation Army is usually and deservedly credited with being one of the most efficient and effective charities in America, which it is.  It is however, a church, the word “Salvation” in its name is not talking about the furniture and clothing salvaged and donated to it, it’s refers to saving their member’s souls.    Many churches that I know of gather food donations which are then transported to local food banks, and often make up a significant portion of a local’s food banks supply.  This doesn’t get counted in the IRS reports because it’s not a financial contribution, and since there’s no receipt (unlike donations to Goodwill, Salvation Army, Amvets, etc.) this act of giving doesn’t get recorded anywhere except as a food donation at the food bank.  Obviously some portion of religious giving goes to support the physical plant and salaries of ministers and staff, but there are often community benefits that are not captured anywhere, but are of value.    For example, in northern Virginia where I live, many churches’ Sunday School classrooms are used during the week by secular day care and pre-school non-profits.   In my church there is an award winning pre-school that’s been there for forty years, and could not exist without the physical plant provided by the church, but that asset never shows up on the pre-school’s financials because it’s not theirs.

The apples to apples comparison is that both offerings to religious institutions and gifts to charity are tax deductible, but after that fact, trying to draw distinctions about differences and similarities is problematic.

I think it’s more important and productive to figure out ways where religious institutions and charities can more effectively work together.  Another under-tapped resource in my opinion are the potential volunteers that religious congregations may be able to provide to charities that effectively use volunteers in accomplishing their mission.

Regards,

Bill

Bill Huddleston

The CFC Coach

MPA in Nonprofit Management, George Mason University

billhuddleston@verizon.net

703-560-1825

http://www.cfcfundraising.com

P.S.  Here’s the link to the Chronicle study:

http://philanthropy.com/article/How-The-Chronicle-Compiled-Its/133667/

Rick,

I’m glad you cited Jim Collin’s work regarding leadership and excellence, for the non-profit world it’s important to read both his book Good to Great (for businesses) and the accompanying monograph Good to Great and the Social Sectors: Why Business Thinking Is Not the Answer, where he describes how the non-profit sector is more complex than the business sector, and that the model of the “economic engine” that works well in the business environment is inadequate for the more complex non-profit sector.   For the non-profit sector he modifies the concept of the “economic engine (which is one of the key points of the for-profit model) to one of the “Resource Engine” that includes Money, Time and People.

I think one of the problems is more fundamental than not getting the right people on the bus, there is confusion about which game is actually being played.

To use a sports analogy, using RFK Stadium in DC as an example, it has had three types of professional teams play in it, baseball (for which it was originally designed), NFL football (the Washington Redskins in their glory days), and professional soccer, the DC United.  Just because the personnel making up one type of team are excellent, it doesn’t mean that a NFL football player would be a good candidate to be on the soccer team or to play professional baseball, especially if he or she hasn’t been told that what’s being played is a different game!    The non-profit sector tends to gloss over this reality and is attracted to all the glitz and money that the NFL has (business envy from the non-profit sector), which is more like professional soccer – not enough money, players work harder and longer for less money, they don’t get all the fancy endorsement deals, etc., and are continually “doing more with less.”

So the non-profit now recruits business people that they believe will be an asset to the non-profit, including the important responsibility of a board of raising funds.  So, what’s the first thing we tell board members is:

A. You need to raise money, and

B.  In the non-profit world it is unethical for development staff to be paid commissions for any fundraising results they achieve.

The first fundamental disconnect is with commission sales – no business owner thinks this is an inherently unethical way to do business, regardless of whether or not they pay commissions in their own business.   The non-profit sector says not only we don’t do business this way – we add that it’s unethical!   I know and understand the AFP position, and my point is that when you recruit successful business leaders, and you don’t tell them why and how the rules are different, while it may appear that the wrong people are on the bus, it can also be that you have not explained the differences clearly, e.g.  “You’re an All-Pro pro quarterback, how come you can’t hit a home run?”

This is an area where I think the non-profit sector has not done a good job in general, that of explaining and celebrating the differences among all three sectors of our society.

The commenting software doesn’t allow graphics, but here’s the description.

Non-profit Diagram by Bill Huddleston, MPA in Non-profit Management:

Modern societies need three components to function:  government, businesses, and non-profits.  Non-profits are the glue that holds society together, and while in the USAwe have a market economy, our society is bigger than the economy.  Non-profits are inherently different than businesses.   Governments are inherently different than businesses.  Here is a diagram showing the fundamental difference between businesses and non-profits.   It is astounding how many non-profit leaders (and political leaders) don’t do a better job of communicating to the American public about the value of all three components of society, all of which are critical.

   DIAGRAM -  Comment software doesn’t display graphics:    My diagram that shows these differences is being used in universities, and I’ll be glad to send it to anyone that sends me an e-mail at BillHuddleston at Verizon dot net with NP diagram in the text.          

The fundamental difference is that in the business example, the provider of the funds is also the direct recipient of the benefits of goods and/or services provided.   On its face, the diagram on the right is more complex than the one on the left, and this is what non-profit leaders have done a poor job of communicating this fact to the American public.

We don’t explain how different the game really is, and then we’re frustrated when the newly recruited board member doesn’t live up to expectations.

Regards,
Bill Huddleston, The CFC Coach

Showing Non-profits how to generate unrestricted funds with the Combined Federal Campaign, billhuddleston@verizon.net.

Susan G. Komen Foundation – Board Failure on a Massive Scale

There’s a March 18^th, 2012 article on the Chronicle of Philanthropy website, titled: Komen’s Crisis Came Not From Politics but From Poor Management Decisions                        

by Daniel Grunfeld and David Lash which contains a good analysis of the Susan M. Komen situation, but in my opinion the authors’ forecasts are a case of “looking through rose-colored glasses.” .

Since the initial “controversy” – it’s way more than just a bad PR move, the one group that actually has any power at all in this situation is the Komen’s Board of Directors. It’s the Board’s responsibility to determine whether or not the CEO needs to leave and it can fire her. They are the only group with that power.

And yes, I know that Brinker is also the Board chairman – (bad practice, btw) but she still has just one vote, and cannot prevent the Board from acting in its duty to the non-profit itself. Whether or not they will act, since the silence so far has been deafening, is a different question.

I agree with the points made in this analysis about what happened, and what non-profits should keep in mind (namely their mission and their constituents) as they make decisions.  Where I disagree with the analysis of Mr. Grunfeld and Mr. Dash is their prediction that:  “(Komen)… undoubtedly will continue to play a critical role in an important public-health issue for many years to come.”   

This prediction doesn’t accurately portray the sense of betrayal felt by millions of Susan B. Komen supporters, and the visceral sense that supporters who have gone on Breast Cancer walks for the past twenty years will never do it again for Komen, will never buy anything with a pink label again, the reports of yogurt with the pink label being the only one left in the dairy counter, etc.   Nancy Brinker took what was an apolitical organization, and because of her own personal beliefs, tried to turn it into a political one.  It didn’t work, and the group that hasn’t done its job yet is the Board of Directors.   If the mission of the Komen Foundation is to be Nancy Brinker’s personal piggy bank, then they’ve done their job.  If their job is to be responsible to Komen as a public charity, then they have failed, and are continuing to fail. 

My prediction is that three years from now, Komen may have an equal number of dollars in its bank account, but it has irrevocably harmed its brand, even if Brinker left, it will never have the corps of ambassadors it had built up over the last 20 years.  If the public awareness events (walks, bike rides, etc.,) even continue, they’ll just be a pale imitation of their past.  I also believe that pink branded goods will significantly decline.  Past supporters are cutting off the Susan B. Komen logos on their bags and covering them up with something else.  This is way past just a public relations blunder, it’s betrayal.

Bill Huddleston

The CFC Coach

www.cfcfundraising.com

March 24, 2012

• Saying Thank You

In my Seven Keys to CFC Success, the 7^th (and most important) key is “Say Thank You Early and Often,” and as basic as this principle is, I’m surprised by how many non-profits don’t do it, or don’t do it well.   It’s important to do it, and it can be done in a number of ways, including a personal note, a phone call, or in person.  As many experts have said, the more the thank you is personalized, and the more the donor knows how their gift will be used, the better. 

• Face Time Counts

This is an old sales adage, but the reason that it’s still around is that it’s true.  Even if your main method of communication is e-mail, or other electronic means, work on finding ways to have opportunities for you to have face to face communication with your donors, your supporters, as well as your colleagues in the non-profit community.

• The Sky is Not Falling

Chicken Little had it wrong, although from much of the media it would be hard to prove this.   One specific example I’m going to highlight is all the angst that was expressed about the IRS revocation of non-profit status.  First, the purpose made sense, to clean up the IRS registration rolls that had literally thousands of inactive non-profits still being reported as active.  In March of 2010 in comments section of philanthropy .com article I forecast that there number of defunct non-profits would be 250,000.   (http://philanthropy.com/blogs/government-and-politics/number-of-charitiesfoundations-passes-12-million/21832).  In June, 2011 when the IRS released the actual number of charities that had their status revoked, the total was 275,000, as reported by Guidestar.  Other forecasters had predicted that as many as 375,000 charities would have their status revoked, so I am going to say that my analysis was pretty accurate.  (http://www2.guidestar.org/rxg/update-nonprofit-report/nonprofit-resource-center-automatic-revocation-of-tax-exempt-status.aspx.   Now there may have been a few legitimate non-profits that were decertified, but the law was originally passed in 2006, so I’m not really sympathetic to the idea that they didn’t know it was coming.   More accurate data is better for everyone, including the non-profit community.

• Workplace Giving is Not Dead

For a combination of reasons, including the “Face Time Counts” adage, workplace giving is still a viable source of revenue for many non-profits.   In terms of actual giving, if the Combined Federal Campaign (CFC) were a foundation, it would be the 10^th largest foundation in the US.

• One Sentence Summary of all Diet Books:

“Eat less, exercise more.”

I will be following these recommendations myself in the coming New Year and let me conclude by saying Thank You to my readers, to clients, to my professional colleagues, and to my wife and family for all of their support. 

 Happy New Year Everyone!

Bill

Bill Huddleston

The CFC Coach

www.cfcfundraising.com

billhuddleston@verizon.net

Please make sure to thank all the volunteers that make your community a better place to live!

Wwhat are some of the critical ingredients to developing stronger and better relationships with your CFC supporters? I’m going to focus on some practical keys for generating awareness about your non-profit in the CFC community, including your anonymous donors. There are Seven Keys to CFC Success, but I’m highlighting two as a lead-in to the April CFC Secret:

• CFC Success Key #3: Use all 12 months of the year! It’s true that the solicitation period is only in the fall, but there are many actions and activities that you need to be doing during the rest of the year as well, including in April. One important element is to keep communicating about the CFC, in part to combat misinformation about it. Following the “Law of the Harvest,” planting some seeds of success now, in the spring, will help you reap more in the fall.

• CFC Success Key #7: “Say Thank You Early and Often!” This is probably the most important key, yet it is frequently the most violated by many non-profits.

The April CFC “Secret”
Every year, National Volunteer Week is celebrated during the third week of April. This is a huge event, with a Presidential proclamation and a lot of media attention. It is one of the signature events of the Points of Light Institute, and has been a nationally recognized week since 1974. Since as non-profits you don’t have millions of dollars to spend on advertising and marketing, it’s critical to leverage onto events that have significant and widespread coverage, and provide an easy “hook” for traditional media to base a story on.
As part of National Volunteer Week, many non-profits have recognition events, days of service, open houses, and, at minimum, news releases thanking all their supporters and volunteers for helping the non-profit work on achieving its mission during the past year.

This is where you get to combine CFC Success Keys #3 and #7, and add a few “Thank yous” to both your known and unknown CFC supporters. Whatever your non-profit is doing to celebrate National Volunteer Week, make sure that you include a paragraph or two in written materials, or a sentence or two at live events that thanks both your known CFC donors and supporters, and your anonymous CFC supporters, including the CFC workplace giving volunteers. As I already said, if they are CFC donors to your non-profit, they will see the story that gets picked up in a local paper, or may be in attendance at “Volunteer Recognition” event. Saying “Thank You” in the non-profit world is analogous to advertising in the business world, it doesn’t have to wait for a transaction to be meaningful and appreciated. The CFC workplace giving volunteers on the other hand, may not know anything about your specific non-profit, but since they helped raise money for the CFC charities, they deserve a “Thank You” from your non-profit. I call this “planting seeds of awareness,” some will bear fruit, some won’t, but regardless, the CFC volunteers deserve a thank you.

In addition to press releases and speaking opportunities, don’t forget that you have much more control over internal information, including your website, annual reports, newsletters, podcasts, etc. Do you thank your workplace giving donors and volunteers on your website and in your publications?
If no, why not?

The first commenter is Jeff Jackson from the Packard Foundation:

Thanks Beth for you question on organizational assessments, Hildy for raising the issue on assessment effectiveness and Gregrie for raising the related issue on leadership engagement with assessments. I’d like to add to the mix my curiosity about whether there is a difference in effectiveness and/or engagement between self-assessments vs consultant-facilitated assessments (referenced by Hildy). I know there are pros/cons to both approaches and there are hybrid approaches (such as a self-assessment followed by a consultant intervention). I’m also curious about the difference in effectiveness/engagement with one time assessments vs regular (annual) assessments.

On our Packard Foundation OE wiki (see the Organizational and Network Assessment page in the link in my footer), we’ve listed a number of resources and models of assessments (yet leave it to our grantee partners to determine which approach is best for what they need). We include a link to the Funders Guide to Organizational Assessment (Fieldstone Alliance and GEO) that explains when and how to use various tools. We’ve collected pretty powerful stories on results (short and long term) of organizational assessments (albeit a small sample) and very shortly we’ll be posting some related data/stories on our wiki for practitioners/researchers to comment on (see the page on Goldmine Research Project).

Our wiki also has a link to a self-assessmet tool used annually by about 400 community-based grantee partners of the Global Fund for Children and the MTV Staying Alive Foundation (a slightly revised version). The organizations use the tool to self-assess their organization’s strengths and learning curves when it comes to 7 areas of organizational capacity. Use of the tool is still relatively new (three years with GFC and just starting with SAF), but input on usefulness has been generally positive. One of the strongest messages is that self-assessment in itself is building knowledge and capacity about building organizational capacity. The leadership engagement question is addressed since the tool is completed minimally by the ED and ideally with board, staff and client stakeholders. Both GFC and SAF make it clear in the instructions, that the assessment is meant to be an action-learning tool for the grantee partners, more than an evaluative tool for the funders.

I hope this adds some food for thought.

Jeff

Interested in nonprofit organizational and network effectiveness? Check out:

http://packard-foundation-oe.wikispaces.com/

Jeff Jackson
Organizational Effectiveness Program Consultant The David and Lucile Packard Foundation 300 Second Street, Los Altos, CA 94022 510.628-0800 ________________________________________
From: NonProfit and Voluntary Action Discussion Group [ARNOVA-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU] On Behalf Of Gregrie Merkel [Gregrie.Merkel@UWCNM.ORG]
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 1:27 PM
To: ARNOVA-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
Subject: Re: Organizational Assessment tool

Hildy, You are not alone. We could dig deeper to come up with the same result. Every piece of information and all authorities may point to needing immediate change, but unless the CEO is directly motivated, the board will not see it as anything to address. It isn’t a need for money, it’s a need to listen. You know, if it isn’t broken-don’t fix it; if I don’t have to do it I won’t. This occurs with the most passionate defenders of their cause. I hear specifics and generalities every day internally and externally regarding what needs to come into play to succeed. My reference comes from discussions with others in research at many small and national nonprofits. As long as the organization is not bankrupt or void of volunteers, they will not make sweeping change or possibly any change at all. At times the comfort level has to be pushed to make a difference. Gregrie

Gregrie Merkel / Research / United Way of Central New Mexico
505 247 3671 xt 350 gregrie.merkel@uwcnm.org / http://www.uwcnm.org

From: NonProfit and Voluntary Action Discussion Group [mailto:ARNOVA-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU] On Behalf Of Hildy Gottlieb
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 1:39 PM
To: ARNOVA-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
Subject: Re: Organizational Assessment tool

On 2/3/2011 10:27 AM, Beth Bagwell wrote:
Dear ARNOVAns,
I am currently looking for information regarding assessment tools for evaluating the overall performance of nonprofits. This will be used as an entry point for providing guidance to the nonprofit sector regarding strategic planning, etc. I’ve found some information on the website, but wanted to know of other tools that were recognized and user friendly.
Thank you,
Beth Bagwell

Beth’s question raises another question for me – one that has tugged at the back of my mind for a while. And that is the effectiveness of organizational assessments.

In my own experience, I have seen countless assessments, done by outside organizations who are well acclaimed for their methodologies. And from those assessments, I have pretty consistently seen several results, in no particular order:
• Nothing changes… and/or
• Plans are made to address issues raised in the assessment, but little is done to address the larger systemic issues at the heart of the symptoms, and symptoms soon re-occur (if any action is taken on the plans at all)… and/or • Organizational leaders feel no ownership of the assessment, finding themselves in the role of interviewees rather than the ones actually assessing the org themselves – or even determining what is important to assess. (Having been told they don’t know what to assess, they believe that and default to, “Well I guess we need an outsider…”) All assessment calculations are done by the outside entity performing the assessment, the final result of which is then presented to organizational leaders. Those leaders then determine which areas they agree with/ disagree with. Virtually none of what they read is surprising to them, but they don’t feel any ownership of the assessment because they neither designed nor executed it… and/or • Even assessments that are fully acted upon do not make a significant difference in the impact the organization has in the community, as assessments tend to measure organizational strength against internally-focused management checklists rather than answering the externally-focused question, “What difference does the organization want to make in the community, and what does it need to accomplish that?” …

Is this just my experience? Is there research into the extent to which (and/or what kind of) organizational assessment actually a) creates meaningful organizational change and b) increases the impact organizations have in their communities (the supposed goal of building strong orgs in the first place)?

Thanks for any observations any of you can share.

Hildy

Hildy Gottlieb
Creating the Future
Making Visionary Community Change Practical http://www.CreatingTheFuture.org

http://www.hildygottlieb.com/

520-321-4433
Twitter: @HildyGottlieb
Skype: HildyGottlieb

Complete instructions on managing subscriptions to ARNOVA-L, reviewing the archive of postings, and other useful information can be accessed from the link at the top right of the webpage at http://www.arnova.org Complete instructions on managing subscriptions to ARNOVA-L, reviewing the archive of postings, and other useful information can be accessed from the link at the top right of the webpage at http://www.arnova.org

Complete instructions on managing subscriptions to ARNOVA-L, reviewing the archive of postings, and other useful information can be accessed from the link at the top right of the webpage at http://www.arnova.org