The final item that I think would be appropriate for a new charity start-up review panel to understand about a new nonprofit is the strategic plan developed by the founder. Having seen the plans developed by several charity start-ups in recent years, I know that what these founders have understood by "strategic planning" is not adequate to the task at hand.
Strategic Planning must be done according to a model, and the model I like most includes the following topics:
1. Who are we, in terms of our past? Where did we come from? What are our traditions, our symbols and our customs? How and why did these develop and over what kind of time?
2. What is our present situation? Where are we located geographically and conceptually? What is our current purpose, mission and vision, and what are our values? What programs of service do we presently offer and why do we offer these, and to what target populations? What resources do we have available? What is our Case for Support?
3. What are the current trends in our arena of service? What's happening to change the picture in which we find ourselves?
4. What, going forward, should be our new role and mission? What are the ways we want to affect the society around us, our environment? What is the greater social good that we seek to serve?
5. How do we define the steps we will need to take to get from where we are now to where we need to be in order to fulfill our role and accomplish our mission? Over what kind of time will this need to be done? Using what resources – human and financial?
6. What strategies and tactics are we going to need in order to achieve the objectives defined by those steps? How will we structure ourselves for work? How will we program our organization? What procedures and policies will be needed, and at what conceptual levels?
7. What resources will we need (including those we have now) and how do we find or make a continuing source of those resources? Particularly, the fundraising strategic plan comes in here, as well as the plan for human resource procurement and management.
8. How will we know when we have succeeded in accomplishing our mission? What units of measurement will we use? What process of measurement will we use, in the short run and over longer periods of time? To whom will we report these accomplishments?
9. What means do we have in place to make mid-course corrections within the framework of the organization's structure, budget, policies, procedures and human limitations?
10. What are the means by which we will make our strategic plan operational on a day-to-day and week-by-week basis so that we understand every action and every policy in the context of our strategic plan?
If and as the new charity start-up review panel would have in hand the details of such a plan, they would be able to identify immediately any potential flaws they see that would mean trouble down the road for the new nonprofit. They could point these out and the founder would have a chance to continue the work of planning, ironing out those wrinkles before getting started. That would save the donors, the taxpayers, the service recipients, the board, and, ultimately, the founder him/herself a lot of time and wasted effort. Unfortunately, if this system were in wide use today, there would be less work for us fundraising consultants to do!
If you'd like to have an instrument that would get a nonprofit organization started in the planning process Click here and order the "Diagnostic" offered on this page.
Showing posts with label Long-term "cure" for "Founder-itis". Show all posts
Showing posts with label Long-term "cure" for "Founder-itis". Show all posts
Monday, January 22, 2007
Friday, January 19, 2007
Digging for the Evidence that a New Charity is Needed
Our fourth objective, as we said before, is to help donors easily find the information they need to assure themselves that their gifts will be effectively and efficiently used for the purpose intended. This information is of two distinct types.
1. The first kind of information donors need is essentially demographic in nature. It would consist of the number of potential service recipients in the start-up charity's geographic area, along with a determination of the number of charities already serving that population. Arts, environment and public service organizations may have a harder time coming up with such figures. But human service networks can readily provide such information and much of the work has been done in the collection of census data. Similarly, hospitals and educational institutions generally have information and service networks that can be accessed for such information.
2. The second type of information donors need is the types of service program already in operation and their relative effectiveness with the people they serve. The result should be a number of those who comprise the target population that is understood as not being served with necessary programs. Here, the founder of a charity start-up may need to do a little digging. But this is relevant work when starting up a new nonprofit, and the founder's feet need to be held to the fire to investigate the field thoroughly before putting together the plan for a new nonprofit.
Through these kinds of numbers a donor can see the relative need for a gift, and a new charity start-up review committee could see the need for the new charity, both in terms of numbers of target population, and in the extent of programming needed to complement or assist existing nonprofit service units. These should become a part of the new charity start-up review process.
1. The first kind of information donors need is essentially demographic in nature. It would consist of the number of potential service recipients in the start-up charity's geographic area, along with a determination of the number of charities already serving that population. Arts, environment and public service organizations may have a harder time coming up with such figures. But human service networks can readily provide such information and much of the work has been done in the collection of census data. Similarly, hospitals and educational institutions generally have information and service networks that can be accessed for such information.
2. The second type of information donors need is the types of service program already in operation and their relative effectiveness with the people they serve. The result should be a number of those who comprise the target population that is understood as not being served with necessary programs. Here, the founder of a charity start-up may need to do a little digging. But this is relevant work when starting up a new nonprofit, and the founder's feet need to be held to the fire to investigate the field thoroughly before putting together the plan for a new nonprofit.
Through these kinds of numbers a donor can see the relative need for a gift, and a new charity start-up review committee could see the need for the new charity, both in terms of numbers of target population, and in the extent of programming needed to complement or assist existing nonprofit service units. These should become a part of the new charity start-up review process.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
"Case For Support" is Part of the Planning Effort
Our third objective is that we want to help ensure that prospective donors in the community have reasonable clarity about the mission and accomplishments of the charities they are asked to support. How can we do that in this new "charity start-up certification" process?
Part of the strategic plan of any new or continuing nonprofit organization is its mission statement, its case for support, and its method of disseminating that case for support among its constituents on a regular, frequent, persistent and consistent basis. So these will be good ingredients to give to the organization that is certifying the new charity start-up.
1. There should be a mission statement developed for the organization, so that should be shared with the start-up certification panel. Along with that mission statement there would also be the plan of mission accomplishment, or service delivery. That would describe in some details the scope of service delivery and the methods the founder envisions being used. It will also need to include anticipated outcomes so that there is something to measure effectiveness from the very beginning. These items should also be part of the certification review process.
2. Instead of waiting several years until a convenient time presents itself (or even never getting around to it), the organization's case for support should be developed and written down right at the beginning. This document would contain a complete and detailed set of reasons why anyone should or would give any money in support of the organization's work. It should state the set of features offered to individual, foundation and corporate donors, as well as the benefits to be derived from making a contribution. This is going to include the schedule of benefits for corporate sponsorships, and the recognition system, along with any naming opportunities that can be devised at this early point in the nonprofit's life. These should all be part of the certification review process.
Part of the strategic plan of any new or continuing nonprofit organization is its mission statement, its case for support, and its method of disseminating that case for support among its constituents on a regular, frequent, persistent and consistent basis. So these will be good ingredients to give to the organization that is certifying the new charity start-up.
1. There should be a mission statement developed for the organization, so that should be shared with the start-up certification panel. Along with that mission statement there would also be the plan of mission accomplishment, or service delivery. That would describe in some details the scope of service delivery and the methods the founder envisions being used. It will also need to include anticipated outcomes so that there is something to measure effectiveness from the very beginning. These items should also be part of the certification review process.
2. Instead of waiting several years until a convenient time presents itself (or even never getting around to it), the organization's case for support should be developed and written down right at the beginning. This document would contain a complete and detailed set of reasons why anyone should or would give any money in support of the organization's work. It should state the set of features offered to individual, foundation and corporate donors, as well as the benefits to be derived from making a contribution. This is going to include the schedule of benefits for corporate sponsorships, and the recognition system, along with any naming opportunities that can be devised at this early point in the nonprofit's life. These should all be part of the certification review process.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
A Serious Look at Duplicative Nonprofits
I said that our second objective for regulating a new charity start-up is to discourage the creation of new charity start-ups in geographic locations where similar charities have already been set up. We want to avoid duplication of effort, while, at the same time, encouraging new charities to care for needs that have been left unmet.
I think one way to care for this would be to gather specific information about target populations and the numbers of charities serving those populations. That information, however, would have been gathered in the approval process as we described in this yesterday's post.
But a second step would be to have other charities already operating in the start-up's territory certify that another nonprofit in that specialty is, in fact, needed in order to serve the target population. This would mean that the founders of a new nonprofit would need to have met with the leadership of other, similar charities that already exist, and obtain the support of the leadership in those existing charities for the new start-up. I think this would do a lot for weeding out duplicative charities, and would force the issue of "turf" out in the open right from the beginning. This would put nonprofit start-ups on approximately the same grounds as hospitals -- having to prove that they are needed in order to serve the target population.
This means that the human service charities, or the arts charities, or the health groups or educational institutions would need to meet with would-be founders of new nonprofit start-ups to decide together whether there is:
1) an urgent need in the geographic area for such a new start-up;
2) sufficient support available from within the community to fund the work of both existing charities and that of the new start-up; and
3) an adequate strategic plan devised by the new start-up that is likely to ensure its success.
Experience is a good teacher, groups on the ground, in the locality – however cumbersome – are more likely to be better regulators of charitable activity within a given specialty in a given geographical area.
Now, I would agree with you that this is going to blow the lid off of new charity start-ups. Where "turf" is an issue, it's going to be extremely difficult for a new charity to get started. But those groups will need to show that they are covering what needs to be done, and the onus of that burden should be great enough to forestall turf-based greed among existing charities.
Where "turf" is NOT an issue, and progress holds sway, there is going to be careful assessment of just how a new start-up will contribute to the ultimate success and advancement of all such groups in the geographical and program area.
I think one way to care for this would be to gather specific information about target populations and the numbers of charities serving those populations. That information, however, would have been gathered in the approval process as we described in this yesterday's post.
But a second step would be to have other charities already operating in the start-up's territory certify that another nonprofit in that specialty is, in fact, needed in order to serve the target population. This would mean that the founders of a new nonprofit would need to have met with the leadership of other, similar charities that already exist, and obtain the support of the leadership in those existing charities for the new start-up. I think this would do a lot for weeding out duplicative charities, and would force the issue of "turf" out in the open right from the beginning. This would put nonprofit start-ups on approximately the same grounds as hospitals -- having to prove that they are needed in order to serve the target population.
This means that the human service charities, or the arts charities, or the health groups or educational institutions would need to meet with would-be founders of new nonprofit start-ups to decide together whether there is:
1) an urgent need in the geographic area for such a new start-up;
2) sufficient support available from within the community to fund the work of both existing charities and that of the new start-up; and
3) an adequate strategic plan devised by the new start-up that is likely to ensure its success.
Experience is a good teacher, groups on the ground, in the locality – however cumbersome – are more likely to be better regulators of charitable activity within a given specialty in a given geographical area.
Now, I would agree with you that this is going to blow the lid off of new charity start-ups. Where "turf" is an issue, it's going to be extremely difficult for a new charity to get started. But those groups will need to show that they are covering what needs to be done, and the onus of that burden should be great enough to forestall turf-based greed among existing charities.
Where "turf" is NOT an issue, and progress holds sway, there is going to be careful assessment of just how a new start-up will contribute to the ultimate success and advancement of all such groups in the geographical and program area.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Getting Straight on Planning and Finance
To care for the first objective – making sure the necessary strategic and financial ingredients are in place – I think we should request the following information on some sort of application to be a 501-c-3 nonprofit organization:
1. Ask each charity start-up to submit information regarding their prospective board members. We need to know their name and contact information, of course. But we also want to know their field of professional work, their relative capacity to give or solicit contributions to the new nonprofit on a continuing basis, and their estimated previous experience in governing nonprofit organizations. We want to know that the skills and experience background of the initial board is diverse and strong enough to provide good governance. We want to know that the board members selected are going to be independent of the founder/executive. So what is there relationship (not just family ties, either) to the founder?
2. Ask each organization applying for nonprofit status to submit a 10-page summary of their strategic plan – or their "business plan." What we would want to see here is a summary of
the organization's mission and vision statement, the group's strategic objectives, the program strategies that will be used to accomplish the strategic objectives, and the organization's budget for the first five years of its existence, including all sources of revenue. We would also want to have a comprehensive fundraising plan to ensure the continuing sustainability of the new nonprofit. We want to know that this group has done their strategic planning and financial homework.
3. We also want to know how, and the extent to which, the founders of the new nonprofit have ascertained that there is, in fact, a community need for their anticipated mission, and that the community and its leadership are supportive of and ready to undergird the new nonprofit and its work with their contributions of time and money. This would require some sort of means testing and some affidavits from typical community leaders in government, education, business, media and nonprofit sectors.
4. We would also want a summary of the competence areas and the experience depth of the organization's founder or starting executive or other program staff that will be employed as the new nonprofit gets underway.
5. Once the new nonprofit is approved, we would want a series of follow-up reports on financial status and mission accomplishment for up to five years after approval. We would want to see comparative budgets vs. actual revenues and expenses, as well as an annual balance sheet. In other words, we would want a full and audited financial statement for each of the five years of the start-up charity's existence. We also would want audited figues relative to programs of service provided, the target populations served and the results obtained in service.
Now, you're probably saying to yourself, "Is this guy nuts, or what?!" But tell me, dear reader: is it better to require this information up front and for the first five years, and to set up the mechanism for doing that? Or is it better to have a plethora of charity start-ups, many of whom will no longer be in existence in five years, or who will be serving ineptly and inefficiently, thus mis-using the public's contributed funds? Is it better to "let 'em run wild" and proliferate, or to weed out the inadequately prepared groups right from the start?
In my view, it serves the public interest – both the society at large and the donating public – to have charities out there whose start-ups have been properly certified as having the right ingredients from their beginning. If they don't get off to a good start, of what ultimate use are they to society?
1. Ask each charity start-up to submit information regarding their prospective board members. We need to know their name and contact information, of course. But we also want to know their field of professional work, their relative capacity to give or solicit contributions to the new nonprofit on a continuing basis, and their estimated previous experience in governing nonprofit organizations. We want to know that the skills and experience background of the initial board is diverse and strong enough to provide good governance. We want to know that the board members selected are going to be independent of the founder/executive. So what is there relationship (not just family ties, either) to the founder?
2. Ask each organization applying for nonprofit status to submit a 10-page summary of their strategic plan – or their "business plan." What we would want to see here is a summary of
the organization's mission and vision statement, the group's strategic objectives, the program strategies that will be used to accomplish the strategic objectives, and the organization's budget for the first five years of its existence, including all sources of revenue. We would also want to have a comprehensive fundraising plan to ensure the continuing sustainability of the new nonprofit. We want to know that this group has done their strategic planning and financial homework.
3. We also want to know how, and the extent to which, the founders of the new nonprofit have ascertained that there is, in fact, a community need for their anticipated mission, and that the community and its leadership are supportive of and ready to undergird the new nonprofit and its work with their contributions of time and money. This would require some sort of means testing and some affidavits from typical community leaders in government, education, business, media and nonprofit sectors.
4. We would also want a summary of the competence areas and the experience depth of the organization's founder or starting executive or other program staff that will be employed as the new nonprofit gets underway.
5. Once the new nonprofit is approved, we would want a series of follow-up reports on financial status and mission accomplishment for up to five years after approval. We would want to see comparative budgets vs. actual revenues and expenses, as well as an annual balance sheet. In other words, we would want a full and audited financial statement for each of the five years of the start-up charity's existence. We also would want audited figues relative to programs of service provided, the target populations served and the results obtained in service.
Now, you're probably saying to yourself, "Is this guy nuts, or what?!" But tell me, dear reader: is it better to require this information up front and for the first five years, and to set up the mechanism for doing that? Or is it better to have a plethora of charity start-ups, many of whom will no longer be in existence in five years, or who will be serving ineptly and inefficiently, thus mis-using the public's contributed funds? Is it better to "let 'em run wild" and proliferate, or to weed out the inadequately prepared groups right from the start?
In my view, it serves the public interest – both the society at large and the donating public – to have charities out there whose start-ups have been properly certified as having the right ingredients from their beginning. If they don't get off to a good start, of what ultimate use are they to society?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
