Thanks for stopping by my blog.  I am a nonprofit consultant based in Denver, Colorado and do most of my work through the Community Resource Center. I focus on working with small and mid-sized organizations on organizational strategy, board development, social media, and improving effectiveness.  My writing focuses on nonprofit effectiveness, trends in the sector, and resources for young nonprofit leaders.  Want to work with me?  Please get in touch!

I am also a wilderness aficionado and spend nearly every free moment exploring the American west with a camera in hand. Check out my photography at www.SarahFischler.com.

Originally published by the Community Resource Center

Sarah Fischler and Lauren Price, Community Resource Center. Sarah is the Director of Consulting and Special Projects at CRC and Board President of the Young Nonprofit Professionals Network Denver , and Lauren is CRC’s Director of Rural Outreach. They can be found on Twitter: @sarahfischler, and @laurenelizab.

Late April was a busy time for Denver nonprofit professionals! Lauren and Sarah both had the opportunity to attend the Young Nonprofit Professionals Network National Leaders Conference, hosted by YNPN Denver. Sarah also attended parts of the Emerging Practitioners in Philanthropy (EPIP) and Council on Foundations annual conferences, while Lauren followed these conferences on Twitter and webTV.

Sessions on the practical aspects of leadership development and the implications for the sector were prominently featured at all three conferences. The transfer of leadership from the Silent Generation (b. 1928 –1945) and Boomers (b. 1946-1964) to Gen Xers (b. 1965 – 1980) and Millennials (b. after 1980) is well underway. This transition has implications for the ways we communicate, strategize, fundraise and implement our programs. All relating back to the generational leadership shift, these five trends were echoed across the three conferences:

1. “Next” Generation to “Now” Generation: Most of the dialogue about the young leaders characterizes challenges for the sector in terms of preparing next generation leaders and developing strategies to stem crisis. It is time to stop talking about young leaders as the next generation, and start talking about the now generation. As superstar blogger Rosetta Thurman explains in the Chronicle of Philanthropy, earlier this year, “I began using the term ‘now generation leaders’ because the reality is that young nonprofit leaders who are typically referenced as the next generation are not as young as people think. We’re not all college kids anymore… Although we will certainly be the ones leading tomorrow, we’re also the ones who are already leading today.”

More than ever before, it is possible to be a young professional with significant nonprofit leadership experience. Robert Egger, founder of the DC Central Kitchen and a prominent national nonprofit leader, championed this concept during his keynote address at the YNPN conference: “When YNPN first got started, the only accurate word in its name was ‘young’. Now, YNPN is a powerful network of seasoned pros.” Changing the language we use to describe our emerging leadership from “generation next” to “generation now” can help reframe the ways in which leaders from different generations see each other.

2. Shared Leadership: Much of the writing on the topic of the leadership “crisis” facing the nonprofit sector pits generations against one another – one group is leading, the other is waiting in the wings. This is the kind of language that talks about Gen Xers and Millennials and their role in nonprofits, rather than engaging us in a genuine dialogue. Language like this reflects a black and white view of a nuanced, complex situation, and it only polarizes the dialogue about current and future leadership challenges for nonprofits and philanthropy. Language like this contributes to an “us vs. them” thinking, which does nothing to address the real challenges of the sector. This got us thinking about a conversation we had a few weeks back: Lauren felt the language surrounding the Pew Research Center’s February report (“Millennials: A Portrait of Generation Next”) was particularly guilty of this kind of “us vs. them” approach. Perhaps it was due to the webcast forum of the panel introducing the report, but it felt a little bit like the presenters were excited biologists who had just discovered a new species – familiar, of course, but look how weird these Millennials are, and how different from us! Cool!

In a session entitled “Trading Power” at the Council on Foundations conference, the facilitators offered a new construct for thinking about these changing dynamics in sector leadership: identifying what the “next generation” has to offer in exchange for what seasoned leaders can provide. This strengths-based thinking can result in shared leadership – collaboration rather than a competition to prove one group or the other as better, more effective, or with the best ideas.

3. Access to Professional Development and Career Growth: Many young leaders participating in the YNPN Conference expressed significant frustration over their lack of access to basic professional development. If we hope to retain these young leaders, individual organizations and managers need to invest in the Gen X and Millennial leaders of the sector by helping them develop in their careers. As social entrepreneurs and traditional corporations integrate the ideas of a mission-based business, working for a nonprofit is no longer the only way to make a difference in society. We are saying a firm farewell to the days when young people could be expected to take a professionally and financially unrewarding job for the sake of impacting a particular mission. Consequently, the nonprofits that recruit and retain top young leaders will be those that put a high priority on professional development. In Denver, programs like YNPN Denver’s learning circles and Community Shares’ Executive Leadership Institute groups offer very affordable professional development for younger nonprofit employees. Even if your organization cannot pay for these types of activities, meet your employees halfway and provide paid time to pursue professional development and other opportunities for career growth.

Also, for a variety of factors nonprofit professionals are retiring later than they used to. Consequently, some young professionals find that senior leadership opportunities are not available – opportunities which would have once been vacated through retirement. This phenomenon occurs in the corporate sector as well: publications like Bloomberg Businessweek call it the “grey ceiling”. What are individual nonprofits doing to provide career growth opportunities for Gen Xers and Millennials, especially when senior leadership positions are still occupied by skilled, experienced and healthy Boomers and Silent Generation leaders?

4. Challenging Misperceptions around Generational Tendencies: During the intergenerational conversations about what younger staff can bring to an organization, the discussion nearly always turns to technology. Both young leaders and their colleagues need to challenge the misperception that the most important skill that young professionals bring to an organization is the ability to use social media proficiently. While tech savvy is a tremendous asset, young professionals and leaders bring so much more than their Facebook networks, and are eager for opportunities to demonstrate proficiency in these other areas as well. Are we thinking about generational ‘personalities’ as a starting point for actual workplace relationships, or are we pigeonholing each other into stereotypes? Not all Millennials are tuned into pop culture, for example, just as not all Boomers love committees.

5. Hunger for New Approaches to Solving Persistent Problems: Power dynamics between funders and nonprofits. The challenges of the nonprofit board governance model. Interest in social enterprise and the burgeoning L3C movement. Enthusiasm and interest in collaborative leadership models. What do all these thoughts and trends have in common? The participants in the YNPN and EPIP conferences have new, interesting ideas about how to address some of the persistent challenges and new opportunities associated with nonprofit work and the sector as a whole. Giving young leaders some room to try new ideas and engage in calculated risk now will pay off in helping build sustainability and increased effectiveness for the sector over time.

What are your thoughts on these five themes? Did we miss something? Ask us questions or comment on our blog below!

RESOURCES Want to read more about these topics, the happenings of these three conferences, or learn more about resources for young leaders? Check out these links:

• Denver Young Nonprofit Professionals Network
• National Young Nonprofit Professionals Network
• Robert Egger’s Wrap-Up of the YNPN Conference
• The End of the ‘Next Generation’ in the Chronicle of Philanthropy
• Twitter Round-up of EPIP and YNPN Conferences
• Ready to Lead Report: Next Generation Leaders Speak Out
• Trading Power Report
• PewResearchCenter, “Millennials: A Portrait of Generation Next”
• PewResearchCenter, “How Millennial Are You? A Quiz”
• Follow Lauren’s list of nonprofit professionals, organizations, think tanks and publications
• “The Young and the Feckless: The Myth of Gen Y Homogeneity”

Me: Shameless Self-Promotion

Rockstar nonprofit and social change blogger/consultant/speaker/writer Rosetta Thurman featured me on her blog today.  Rosetta has been doing a series on how young nonprofit professionals can get started in consulting, so I wrote up a short piece about how I got started in consulting two years ago.  Thank you, Rosetta, for featuring me – much appreciated!

Here’s a sample of what I had to say…  

• A strong network is essential.  My largest and most interesting projects are the result of carefully, authentically nurtured relationships.
• Make a commitment to staying on the leading edge, as this will set you apart from your competition.  It takes time to stay in tune with the thought leaders of our field, but I think it is essential.
• I started doing paid consulting at 27.  I have only had two instances where people commented about my age in a negative way.  If you come to a project with the right set of skills, expertise, flexibility, and willingness to learn, I think young professionals can be highly effective consultants and often bring an important level of freshness to their projects.
• Consulting is far more difficult than most people expect, especially in terms of the psychological aspects of the work.  Take the time to learn how to move a group through conflict, facilitate difficult conversations, and deliver negative information in a humane manner.
• Under-promise and over-deliver.  This is the best way to build business and gain repeat customers.  This is my mantra for 2010.
• Build a network of peer consultants who you can turn to for advice, work with on large projects, and use as a trusted referral network.
• Commit yourself to doing what is right for the client, not what will get you the next contract.  You certainly do not want to develop that reputation.

Want to read the whole thing, check it out here.

It is “Unofficial Month of the Young Nonprofit Leader” on my blog as a lead-up to the Young Nonprofit Professionals Network Leaders Conference in Denver on April 23 and 24. This is the second post in my series on issues related to young nonprofit professionals and our influence on the nonprofit sector. Want to read about a specific topic? Tell me here.

One of my frustrations with research and commentary on the “nonprofit sector” is that authors make conclusions about the sector as a whole when finer slicing and dicing of data and information could result in a more accurate picture of the different experiences within different types of organizations. I think this is the case with some recent internet conversations about the lack of younger people on nonprofit boards. Based on my experience, the issue is not so much the lack of opportunity to serve on a “nonprofit board” but rather the near complete lack of age diversity on boards with substantial influence and power.

As cited by  Rosetta Thurman on her Chronicle of Philanthropy blog and Emily Heard of BoardSource in their respective posts on the topic, the 2007 BoardSource Nonprofit Governance Index reports that only 2 percent of nonprofit board members are under the age of 30. I think this could be an example of where some cross-tabulation of the data could help in identifying important underlying trends. With some additional analysis, I am pretty confident the data would tell the story that smaller organizations have more diverse boards, especially age-wise, compared to larger nonprofits and foundations (the nonprofits that, at least traditionally, have held the most power and influence in the sector).

I work extensively with small and mid-sized nonprofits and come in contact with hundreds of nonprofit board members and dozens of boards each year in my role as a nonprofit consultant and workshop facilitator. In thinking about my recent clients, nearly all of them have younger people on their boards. In many cases, these younger people are serving in positions of leadership. In randomly sampling my client files from the last few months, I see a group of nonprofit organizations that all have at least one or two younger board members (under 35) and some that have people under the age of 30 in formal leadership roles (a board president and an executive committee member of well-respected, locally prominent organizations, for example).

It is also my observation that most of the younger board members I meet were deliberately recruited for their enthusiasm and new ideas, not to serve as the token “young person.” Thus, my direct experience suggests that there is opportunity for younger people to serve on certain types of nonprofit boards and serve in leadership positions on those boards.  I also agree with Rosetta, Emily, and Peter Brinckerhoff that there is definitely room to grow in terms of helping boards and younger people find each other and then build a successful relationship. BoardSource in particular should be applauded for making this a deliberate priority in their programming.

These examples, however, represent one type of board service – the type that revolves around community service and commitment to helping advance a particular mission. Another type of board service is the type that revolves around power and influence, in addition to advancing a specific mission. The decisions in these board rooms shape the sector for the good and the bad. While all types of board service are important and there is obviously overlap between the two, the commentary and programming around having younger people serve on boards seems to focus only on the numbers, not on the types of board service involved.

Those of us involved in promoting age diversity on boards need to address both sides of this coin by also promoting programming that focuses on getting younger voices on the boards with substantial power and influence in the sector, like prominent nonprofit associations, capacity builders, influential nonprofits, and foundations. The board service as community service angle is much easier to address with things like matching services and trainings. The board service as influencer is much harder to advance, but is equally important. And, we shouldn’t just measure success in this area in terms of the percentage of younger board members, but also in terms of the pervasiveness of younger board members of all types of boards, including those that are shaping the nonprofit sector.

I’ll follow-up with some of my ideas about how to accomplish this in a future post. In the meantime, do you have ideas about how younger people could be engaged in both types of board service? If so, please comment below.

Part one of my latest article on organizational relevance for nonprofit organizations has been posted on CausePlanet.   Here is an exerpt:

Relevance is a word that has been tossed around a lot lately, both for the nonprofit sector as a whole and within individual organizations. Many nonprofit leaders have been considering their organization’s place in a world that is being rapidly redefined by technology, the impact of the economic downturn and demographic shifts. This, I believe, is a good thing. However, an all too common response to the “Will we continue to be relevant?” question seems to be turning inward, doing a quick review of all the things an organization is doing well, and then proudly reporting to constituents that, “Yes, we are relevant. More relevant than ever.” 

Want to read the whole thing?  Check it out on CausePlanet. 

What do you think will be the top considerations for continued organizational relevance?  What is your organization doing to ensure continued relevance (or leadership) in your field?  I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Nonprofit executive compensation has been the hot topic on Twitter this week (at least among the nonprofit geeks like me). This time, the discussion started in response to the Boys & Girls Club CEO being paid nearly a $1 million last year and some legislation in Canada that would cap nonprofit executive pay at $250,000 per year (here  and here). These types of compensation conversations almost always focus on the biggest organizations and the biggest salaries, a topic that is interesting but irrelevant for most people working in and leading nonprofits across the Unites States.

.

The controversy over executive pay in the biggest organizations undermines and distracts from the equally important conversation about the continued starvation (for more) of the nonprofits on the other end of the spectrum. In my experience as a nonprofit staff member, board member, grantmaker and consultant, the problem of severe underinvestment in overhead, including staff and staff compensation, is a serious structural issue that reduces the sustainability and effectiveness of many organizations and the sector as a whole.

.

Passion, idealism, and commitment attract people to social change work.  The reality of working in many nonprofits is often soul-crushing, frustrating, and draining.  In too many organizations, staff members are paid at rates that would enable them to access the services provided to clients, receive little to no professional development, are overworked, and do not have access to the tools necessary to do their jobs well (like technology, functional office equipment, administrative support, etc). In the average nonprofit with a budget around $500,000 per year, the executive director manages the staff, raises most of the money, works with the board, oversees most communications, may deliver programming, and tries to advance some larger strategic goals if some time is left over at the end of the day (and there rarely is). This job description has evolved because of underinvestment in infrastructure and capacity, not because this is the best leadership model for the sector. 

.

Too many in the nonprofit sector accept this starvation model as just the way things are. We need to change this attitude to make the sector more sustainable and effective. Without additional investment in organizational infrastructure and capacity, most small to mid-sized nonprofits will continue to piece together resources to inch their mission forward. While I mostly agree with Rosetta Thurman that CEOs of large nonprofits who want for-profit salaries should work for for-profit companies, those of us working at smaller, community-based nonprofits need to continue to advocate and make a stronger case for greater investments in the infrastructure and overhead necessary to support strong leadership, fair pay and benefits for staff, effective operations, and better organizational results. 

.

Every time the issue of excessive executive compensation comes up, those of us working in the “average” under-resourced nonprofit need to redirect the conversation to make the case for investing in infrastructure and leadership. We cannot continue to let the controversy about $1 million salaries filter down and define perceptions about community-based nonprofit organizations. Each time an organization reduces their investment in infrastructure in response to media criticism, funder pressure, or some other external force, we are continuing to perpetuate this vicious cycle that undermines effectiveness and mission impact.  Instead, we need to step up and demonstrate why these investments actually result in a more effective use of donor dollars and greater mission impact.

During a recent meeting with one of my consulting clients, we started discussing how the organization could use social media to advance its mission. I brought up Twitter and the executive director’s response was, “I don’t care if someone ate Cheerios for breakfast.” Her response demonstrates a common misperception about Twitter. Yes, there is a tremendous amount of useless noise on the internet and a lot of it is developed through Twitter, through which the ten billionth Tweet flowed this week. If you are not familiar with Twitter, check out this introduction before reading the rest of this article.

Over the last year, I have been doing a lot of training on how nonprofits can use social media to leverage resources and advance their mission. Until recently, I gave Twitter a cursory review, showed a few examples, and moved onto other tools that I have personally find to be more useful. While some nonprofits have found success in connecting to their constituencies through Twitter, my perception had been in line with my clients’ opinion that Twitter communicates nothing but noise.

In December, I decided to give Twitter a try. In a few short months, I have become a convert but for different reasons than I anticipated. For me, the biggest surprise in using Twitter has been that it is a tremendous professional development tool. For free, I have access to a personalized nonprofit news service, through which a self-designed list of contributors feed information to me through their Twitter streams. How else could I have instant access to the latest thinking from the thought leaders in my field, get a current pulse on trends in the nonprofit sector, and follow the things that interest me – all in the same place and for free? Only through Twitter.

Even though I subscribe to traditional publications in my field like the Chronicle of Philanthropy, follow a lot of nonprofit blogs, and subscribe to many listservs, I have found that the most relevant and interesting information comes through Twitter. My perception that Twitter is full of noise has also been completely debunked through my personal experience. Because I am very selective in choosing to follow people, I would estimate that 90 percent of the Tweets that come through my Twitter stream are highly relevant and interesting. The other 10 percent, even if it a casual mention of someone’s other hobbies or interests, still add depth and personality to postings.

For me, the biggest advantage to using Twitter has been coming across tools, articles, and resources on a daily basis that can help me do my job better. Additionally, I am exposed to interesting ideas on a daily basis and see links to articles that I would not otherwise see. In this time of non-existent professional development budgets, Twitter has helped me stay in tune with ideas from the leading edge of my field. Twitter is also an excellent research tool, as I can stay up-to-date on what similar organizations are doing to advance their mission, raise money, or communicate to their constituencies.

The only drawback that I have experienced is that of information overload. I could spend all day following up on ideas I see mentioned on Twitter or reading the interesting articles that come across my Twitter stream. For me, setting the boundary of spending no more than 15 to 20 minutes a day reading things that come through Twitter has been working. I also use a service called TweetDeck that helps me mark items as favorites so I can follow-up later.

If you are interested in exploring how you can use Twitter as a professional development tool, here are some tips on getting started:

• Sign up for Twitter. Choose a professional username if you plan to actively use Twitter to communicate your own ideas (remember, what you post on the web can haunt you forever). Or, you can choose to be completely anonymous if you want to maintain your privacy.
• Decide on why you are using Twitter. If you just want to follow people to see what they are saying, all you need to do is set up an account and find people to follow. The easiest way to find people to follow is to find a person you want to follow and then look through the list of people they are following.
• If you plan to actively use Twitter to promote you or your organization, you will need to be more thoughtful about getting started. For me, I decided to start two separate accounts, one to follow people in the nonprofit sector and one to follow people engaged in my main hobby, landscape photography. If you want people to follow you, a longer-term goal for me, you will need to make yourself relevant. I will not be relevant if I post things about nonprofit governance models to people who are interested in my photography, just as most of you reading this could care less about my new 10-stop ND filter, which I tweeted about through my other account. To learn more about using Twitter to advance your career or your organization, check out our reading list below.
• If you are actively tweeting, be thoughtful about what you write and share. David DuChemin, writing about Twitter for photographers, says, “Be yourself. But be a carefully edited version of yourself.” I think this is very good advice.
• Finally, consider using a tool like TweetDeck to manage Twitter. I find the Twitter interface to be clumsy and difficult to use. Through TweetDeck, I am able to manage both of my Twitter accounts, along with my Facebook and Linked-In account, all in one place. TweetDeck is a free service and can be used on any computer (I use it on my iPhone, too). Since I am using Twitter for professional development, I often come across things that I know I will want to access in the future. TweetDeck has a very friendly “favorites” interface that allows you to tag things for future reference.

If you have been using Twitter for professional development, please let us know how it is working for you and who you are following. Or, if you would like to learn more, check out the reading list below or contact me with basic questions. If you are in northeast Colorado, sign up for Sarah’s class on using online communications for nonprofit organizations.

Reading List:

http://news.cnet.com/newbies-guide-to-twitter/

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/04/technology/04basics.html

http://www.edutopia.org/twitter-professional-development-technology-microblogging

http://rosettathurman.com/blog/2009/12/six-ways-to-use-twitter-to-enhance-your-nonprofit-career/

Originally published by the Community Resource Center

With tighter budgets and fewer resources, more nonprofits are looking towards collaboration as a strategy to help leverage resources and increase organizational effectiveness. Collaboration can often result in greater mission impact or better leveraging of resources. However, if they are not well-conceived and properly managed from the beginning, such “collaborative” relationships can also be a drain on organizational resources. There are two critical pieces to setting up collaborative relationships for success: ensuring that each involved organization has an organizational culture that supports shared work, and having deliberate discussions in advance around any areas where a shared approach or values may not inherently exist.

Initiating a collaboration can sometimes feel like a first date. Each organization wants to present its best face, its strengths and opportunities. This dynamic can sometimes lead to glossing over important cultural issues that will impact the long-term success of a collaborative relationship. Bringing up difficult conversations early on might mean there would not be a “second date” and the organizations involved do not want to risk that kind of potential rejection. This dynamic often results in organizations holding back information or preferences because they fear that discussing such things could derail progress. Identifying what is important to each organization is a critical, but often forgotten, step in ensuring successful outcomes through collaboration.

When CRC works with organizations in developing collaborative relationships, we often start by identifying what we call an organization’s “collaborative culture index.” Using this tool, we are able to get a sense of how well an organization’s culture will support collaborative efforts. Depending on the results, we can help identify some areas for deliberate conversations and negotiations with partners before a collaborative relationship starts.

As part of developing a collaborative cultural index for an organization, CRC assesses the areas described below. We consider the level of agreement with these statements to be an indicator that an organization’s culture will generally support successful collaborative relationships. Areas of less agreement can also help identify places for deliberate discussions and negotiations prior to initiating formally or informally shared work. How well do these statements describe your organization and staff members?

• As an organization, we like to learn about new approaches to doing our work.
• As an organization, we are comfortable with change.
• “We do things our way and our way only” does not characterize our approach to our work.
• We are not typically driven or motivated by competitiveness or by the desire to outdo organizations for the sake of “winning” or looking better.
• We make decisions in a collaborative manner within our organization (for example, staff members are consulted on all major decisions and their ideas are taken into consideration).
• We are comfortable sharing the spotlight and not being out front on everything we do.
• We are comfortable with giving up some control over projects in order to gain the benefits of working together with other organizations and groups.
• I can think of at least three examples of successful collaborations that we have been part of in the recent past.
• If you asked our partners in previous collaborations, the vast majority would agree that our projects have ended well and accomplished our shared goals.
• Staff members have personality traits that promote good working relationships, especially with those outside of our organization. These traits include effective communication skills, the ability to proactively communicate expectations, a willingness to be flexible in terms of approach, the ability to establish and maintain trust, and general friendliness.
• We have a history of seeing projects through over time.

Generally, organizational cultures that are more collaborative in nature are more effective in collaborative relationships with other organizations. These cultures tend to have diffused decision-making structures, history of working well with other organizations, and see added value from working with others. If you find that most of these statements reflect your organization and its practices, there is a strong likelihood that your organization’s culture supports effective collaboration. However, if these traits do not describe your organization, formal collaborative relationships may not be a good immediate strategy for your organization or may require some significant preparatory steps for your organization to be a good partner. This kind of organizational self-reflection is very important to ensure that collaboration is a good strategy for you, and that you will make a good collaborative partner.

For some good resources on collaboration, check out CRC’s February newsletter page.

Learn More About L3Cs

Legislation to create L3Cs in Colorado is pending. Since L3Cs have the potential to significantly change the nonprofit sector (for the better, I think), I have been trying to learn all I can about this new business form. Check out this article for a good introduction.   Thanks for Caryn Capriccioso of InterSector Partners, L3C for passing this along.

Funders and Expectations

Take five minutes to check out this article by Kevin Bolduc on funder expectations.   I recently wrote four grant applications, all for small amounts of funding, over the course of a few days.  Even though all of them used the Colorado Common Grant Application, it took way too long for the amount of funding that will come in if they are approved.  I always advise my clients to consider the opportunity cost when writing a $5,000 grant.  Maybe I need to take my own advice (and some funders could be more straightforward about the time required for applicants and grantees to participate in their funding process). 

Not Enough Good Nonprofits?

And, finally, an oldie-but-goodie.  About 75 percent of the phone calls I receive as part of my consulting practice are from people who want to start nonprofit organizations.  People around my office joke that I am the “dream crusher” because I am always giving people with good, heartfelt ideas the dose of reality that most really do not want to hear.   These calls always bring up the inevitable question, “Are there too many nonprofits?”  Here one perspective on that topic from Jan Masaoka.

 Thanks for stopping  by and have a good weekend!

Originally published by the Community Resource Center

As part of the Weathering the Storm project, the Community Resource Center and the Colorado Nonprofit Association sponsored trainings on fundraising, financial management, and collaboration to help nonprofit organizations enhance their sustainability during these challenging economic times. As part of this project over the last nine months, I have taught 15 trainings on fundraising during difficult times for nonprofit organizations of all sizes and types across Colorado and have seen the same opportunities for growth come up again and again.

 Because the ability to generate revenue is at the core of nonprofit sustainability, we are suggesting these four fundraising resolutions to improve your organization’s fundraising effectiveness for 2010. Check out CRC’s reading list for more information and some ideas to get started on each of these resolutions.

Commit to Greater Diversification

Unfortunately, 2009 was a difficult year for many nonprofit organizations. A lack of diversified revenue sources has continued to be the source of vulnerability for many organizations. If a major funder pulls out or a type of funding declines across the board, a nonprofit can be forced to make difficult decisions like cutting or reducing programs, or in the most extreme cases, closing the doors.

Help your organization improve its prospects for long-term sustainability by diversifying your fundraising base during 2010, both in terms of number and types of donors. Has your organization been planning to start an individual donor campaign or investigate foundation funding for the last five years, but has never found the time? Make it a priority for 2010, even if it is only starting with a small goal, like recruiting 25 new individual donors or submitting a small grant application to a local funder. Setting some small goals for increased diversification and then achieving them can help put your organization on the path to greater sustainability.

Devote Time to Data Management

I am consistently surprised when I encounter an organization with a mid-sized budget and a spreadsheet full of donor information. With donor management packages now accessible to even the smallest organizations, 2010 is the year to commit to getting your donor information into a database, especially if you rely on individual donors for revenue. Better data management can help you make better fundraising decisions and possibly increase the outcomes of your fundraising activities if used strategically. In a spreadsheet, you only see donors as single lines of information. Donor databases can instead help you see donors in terms of their level of engagement with your organization. This can help your organization in better targeting and customizing your donor solicitation activities, activities that will likely result in better outcomes over time. A good, intuitive, and affordable solution for small nonprofits is GiftWorks. (And, if you need some help in transitioning your information, CRC offers classes and consulting in GiftWorks.)

Learn to Love Strategy

Being more strategic and deliberate in fundraising can almost immediately improve fundraising outcomes for any organization. Scattered fundraising is ineffective, frustrating, and leads to burnout because it feels like an endless treadmill of marginally successful activities. If your organization’s fundraising is scattered, simply outlining a few key fundraising activities, setting measurable goals, and then assessing your organization’s progress can significantly help your organization in being more strategic in its fundraising. Even if it is very simple, creating a written plan of action for your 2010 fundraising can help you move from scattered to strategic, resulting in better fundraising outcomes for your organization.

Being more strategic also includes having a better sense of what works and what doesn’t work. Start 2010 by doing some analysis on your previous fundraising activities to get a sense of what is effective and what is not. For example, how much does it actually cost your organization, including staff and volunteer time, to run an event or raise money through your other fundraising campaigns? Through this kind of simple analysis, you can get a sense of whether or not you could be getting a bigger bang for your buck through other fundraising activities. With this sort of information available, you can make a plan that helps prioritize your organization’s activities and leads to more strategic fundraising.

Embrace and Leverage Technology

One of my favorite nonprofit organizations, Community Shares of Colorado, is building an exciting new program on the idea of incremental giving. Through their My Colorado Project (www.mycoloradoproject.org), Community Shares is enabling donors to quickly and easily donate to their member organizations on a monthly, quarterly, or yearly basis – all automatic once someone is signed up. Community Shares adds on the concept of giving circles, in which people use online tools to engage their networks to get others involved in supporting their favorite organizations. We should all learn something from this model, as converting people who send a $100 check each year to regular, monthly donors can result in increased revenues and greater engagement without having to dedicate resources to recruiting new donors. This kind of program would be a huge drain on resources for most nonprofits without technology to automate the process. Using a service like Acceptiva, your organization can implement a similar program to transition your occasional donors into incremental donors using technology and possibly reap the benefits of higher donations and engagement in your mission.

Incremental giving is one example of how using technology allows a nonprofit to leverage its resources like never before for increased fundraising effectiveness. Web-based technology, like WordPress, has made it possible for small nonprofits to develop professional informational websites for just the cost of a website domain and web hosting (as little as $10 per month) with very little technological expertise. Constant Contact, the popular e-newsletter service, makes sending out an e-newsletter easy and cost-effective. If your organization is not currently using these tools, we encourage you to learn more about how they could help your organization leverage its resources during 2010 for increased fundraising success.

While all of these solutions are not right for all organizations, we encourage you take at least one of these and implement it within your organization during 2010. Doing so will help, in at least a small way, increase your organization’s sustainability for 2010 and beyond.