Skip to content. | Skip to navigation

Sections
Personal tools
You are here: Home Blogs Forging Ahead How we got into this crunch

Kjerstin Erickson is the founder of FORGE. Watch her X-Interview.
susan collin marks john marks

The X-Interviews
Susan Collin Marks and John Marks

generatingblueenergy_small.jpg

Featured Blogger
Generating blueEnergy

Samasourcing

Featured Blogger
Samasourcing

Featured Blogger
Dr. O

svt on impact

Featured Blogger
SVT on Impact

 

 
Document Actions

How we got into this crunch

And the 4 main lessons we've learned along the way....

 
In my last post, I talked about the financial hardship that
FORGE is currently going through and the emotional strain that comes with determining how to best move forward.  The first question that everyone has been asking is "why?" - why are we struggling to meet our baseline budget of $400,000, when there are trillions of dollars out there in the world.  Sparing you the obvious answers, I'll use this post to elucidate the 4 main lessons about things we've done wrong and things that have worked against us:


1) We changed our impact model, and with it lost an income stream.

The Story: As I've
blogged about before, this past year FORGE changed its model from one that used college student volunteers, to one that puts the control of designing and implementing projects directly in the hands of the refugees themselves.  We made this decision based on its potential to exponentially increase our impact, and the results have been better than we hoped for.  Unfortunately, along with the positive change in outcomes, we lost a huge amount of guaranteed revenue every year.  Our American volunteers were each required to raise a minimum of $5,000, and through them we would raise at least half of our funds every year.

The Lesson: We made the decision to change our model consciously, thinking that we had built the structure we needed to survive the transition toward increased impact.  Unfortunately, I think we were judging ourselves by the wrong criteria: we thought that the thing that would allow us to bridge the gap was the four years of
results that we had built.  As it turns out, while results are very important, we should have been asking ourselves whether we had built enough relationships and connections with potential funders.  We've learned that results and a track-record aren't enough, and that any organization that is considering taking the risk of a substantially-increased fundraising burden should ask themselves first and foremost if whether they have the relationships to jump the gap.


2) Hard to categorize

The Story:  A big part of the problem that we encountered this past year was that we were much more confident with our ability to fundraise through grants than turned out to be realistic.  The problem wasn't so much being turned down for grants as it was being able to find grants whose criteria and RFPs we fit.  Of course, finding international grants is hard in the first place, but the major roadblock that we ran up against was that FORGE's mission and programming just didn't seem to fit any of the predetermined categories set by grantmakers.  The problem is simple: because FORGE put the control designing the projects in the hands of the community itself, it's almost impossible to categorize exactly "what" we do When RFPs out there are calling for health projects, or water projects, or post-primary education projects, we can say "we do that, when the community prioritizes it", but we can't simply say "we do THAT."  It's made finding grants that we qualify for extremely difficult...

The Lesson: As collaborative and community-driven approaches to project planning and conflict recovery are still quite new and yet
growing in regard and academic support, my hope is that over time the philanthropic community will catch on and funding will move toward a more open model.  So my belief is that this problem will eventually become a strength.  In the meantime, though, any organization which is similarly difficult to categorize should do a lot of investigation before making grants a large part of their funding strategy.


3) Driving traffic to our website

The Story: This year, we built what I (yes, with obvious bias) believe is one of the most real and informative sites on the internet:
www.FORGEnow.org.  The website was designed to introduce people from across the world to the sites, sounds, tragedies, and hopes of an African refugee camp, and allow them to give directly the projects that most speak to their passions.  Through photos, videos, blogs, and monthly unedited progress reports direct from-the-ground, the site is built for international donor transparency beyond any site we know of.  We are vastly proud of the way it has turned out, but have been disappointed in how little traffic we've been able to drive to the site.  While we knew that we couldn't count on an "if you build it, they will come" mentality, I think we underestimated just how much it takes to get people to come!  Therefore, we just haven't had the kind of site exposure we need to raise the funds we're looking for.

The Lesson: If you are going to depend on a web-based fundraising strategy, you better have the manpower to promote it!  As it is, we have only 3 full-time staff in our US office, and we are responsible for a lot more than just fundraising.  We probably need 4 full-time marketing people to meet our goal of fully funding all of our projects in the next 4 months.  Building a website, no matter how over-the-top awesome, will not be enough.


4) It's the economy (no... I won't call you stupid).

The Story: We sent out our annual mailing to past donors at what turned out to be a historically bad time - right in the middle of the meltdown.  On average, people have been giving about 25% of what they've given in the past!  Yeah...that's really bad.  Partly, it's bad timing on our part.  Partly, you can't blame people for being scared right now.

The Lesson: If you can hold off on a general campaign, do it!  If you can't, be prepared for a very concerning response.  We haven't cracked how to respond to the economy right now, and unfortunately it's come at a time that we are least prepared to deal with it. Ideally, we'd have a few people ready to back us financially should things go really wrong macro-economically.  It's too bad that
the worst effects of the economic fallout are going to be felt by the people around the world who are the least prepared to deal with it...

---
Okay, so I've put it all out there.  The above areas encapsulate the big failures and problems we've run into, although there are surely a lot more things I could add.  I hope that this proves helpful to some people out there.  In the next post, I'm going to write about what really concerns me: what we're doing to move out of this financial crunch and into long-term sustainability and impact growth. 

'til then,

- Kjerstin
www.FORGEnow.org 

Thank you

Posted by Gonzalo Pena at May 07, 2009 11:10 PM

Kjerstin,

I want to express my sincere admiration for your work. Two years ago I was doing research about "The Zambian Initiative" which shattered the paradigm of looking at refugees as promoters of development and not otherwise. The camps I studied were Meheba and Mayukwayukwa. You can imagine how excited I got when I found out about your work.

I thank you for sharing your experiences with us, I'm sure they will provide wisdom. Have you tried promoting your website through viral sources or with social media? In either case, I want to help as much as I could, whether it is with expertise or otherwise. In the meantime, would you be offended if I wrote a post about Forge and your work in my blog? I'm sure that spreading the word can be beneficial to your organization.

Don't you even think about getting discouraged. These rough times are nothing but a way to prove the world what a great leader you are. Please, let me know if I can help. Below is my URL.

Exito!

Gonzalo http://thehumanlevel.blogspot.com

Thanks!

Posted by Kjerstin Erickson at May 07, 2009 11:10 PM

Hi Gonzalo,

Thanks so much for your support - of course you can blog about FORGE! I just sent you an email via your blog. So awesome to know that you have a personal connections to the camps that we work in.

Stay in touch, Kjerstin

More similar than you think

Posted by Jennifer Chen at May 07, 2009 11:10 PM

Hi Kjerstin,

I am currently the president of Givology, a micro-grant online platform that sources grants to young students in the world. They are currently mostly in China, but we are quickly expanding to India, Vietnam, and areas of Latin/South America. Similar to FORGEnow, our donors choose their recipients by reviewing student profiles and project profiles posted by our non-profit partners. Donors are rewarded through updates and multiformat feeds of information about how the student or student community is doing. (www.givology.org)

Our bottleneck, however, is occurring at the same exact places as you've described in your blog--- the building of the framework and the centralization of data is merely the first step. Visibility and traffic flow to our website has basically stayed within the boundaries of the founders' friends and family network. Without cash to fund marketing and publicity efforts, not to mention even our day-to-day expenses like international phone card purchases (to contact our international non-profit partners), we're depending on pro bono and small scale cash donations right now... even despite having a diverse Board of Advisors to bounce ideas off of.

The economy has made everyone skeptical and conservative with his/her money, to say the least. Even $5 sends a "let me evaluate my daily expenses budget" signal to people's minds. However, I think we should take this opportunity to evaluate strategy and approach. Are we truly leveraging the "free" sources we have to increase people's awareness? I think blogging, like you've done, is an extremely effective way to reach out to a self-selective audience interested and passionate about our causes. The economy may be slowing economic development, but it certainly should not stifle our creativity or social innovation drive.

Kudos and cheers- may we continue to support and reach out to one another.

"Learn to give. Give to learn" (Givology's motto)

Jenn

Love your motto!

Posted by Kjerstin Erickson at May 07, 2009 11:10 PM

Hi Jenn,

I just checked out Givology and I think that we definitely are going to facing similar challenges with the web-based fundraising. I'd love to put our heads together and share ideas/successes/failures. Let me know if you are ever in the Bay Area. Otherwise we can always start a little learning circle over the phone/email.

Thanks for reaching out!

Kjerstin

Lessons learned

Posted by DanielBassill at May 07, 2009 11:10 PM

Hi Kjerstin,

I've led a non profit based in Chicago and focused on helping inner city kids for the past 18 years. The problems you've described have been there every year, and your solutions are the right solutions.

Like you, I believe that a web site should be able to show why an organization is needed, what it does, where it is, and how volunteers and donors can help. But without people looking at the web site (and donors looking at the web site), not much is going to change.

Our model has always had a direct service component, which attracts volunteers and builds relationships. This has been critical to our ability to survive. However, I've had to put huge amounts of time, and my own money, into this over the years, just like an entrepreneur would need to invest his own money in his own project.

To me the "light at the end of the tunnel" is a form of collaboration, or collective action. I've been building a network of organizations who do similar work, or have similar goals, and creating events that draw members together, and create visibility for the cause. That also creates traffic for the web.

My message, which I say over and over on my http://tutormentor.blogspot.com is that "we" can either starve and struggle by working alone, or we can find ways to connect our messages and outreach to compete with other messages for public attention.

For those working on similar causes in different parts of the world, this connection of like-minded organizations can be a way to expand relationships for each other. That can be tough to think about in times when we're competing for shrinking dollars, but may be the only way to discover new dollars that have not been tapped.

Good luck to you. Good luck to all of us who work in this sector.

collaborative planning and other thoughts

Posted by Karen Leventhal at May 07, 2009 11:10 PM

Kjerstin,

I'm new to this site, so I hope get the etiquette down. FORGE's work sounds fantastic. Philosophically it's in the line with the work we have been doing at the Tarjan Center Service Inclusion Project for the past five years. Long story short we are located within a University structure, but are bit of hybrid, since we have to raise most of our funds. The Inclusion Project brought together stakeholders in the disability field and in the volunteer and service field to work together to include people with disabilities as volunteers, instead just as the recepient of other people's service. Our niche, in this project and others, is intermediary. We've developed an expertise of being conveners and facilitators. We bring the stakeholders together and they decide what they are going to do. As you mentioned, many funders can be narrow or specific, and don't often fund collaborative planning efforts, even though they are largely sucessful. This is a big problem. However, I found, after doing this for a few years, that while the collaborative process is unique to each group, similar solutions emerge, similar kinds of initiatives. You may find (or are finding) that many of your groups decide on water projects anyway. There may be some way to go for some of these specific funds and still keep the collaborative model. I suspect that themes will emerge from the collaborative process-- as you develop, there may be on-going thematic "interest groups" that form around issues. Then you would be poised to go after some of the funds. Part of the issue might be you may be that in that transitional place where that is forming. Like you, I'm very big picture, I'm about process, so it's a big challenge to figure out how to make that work with the specifics. Also I was intrigued by your move from a student centered model to a collaborative planning model and the financial fall out that occurred. My thought-- perhaps you could create a hybrid model? It's important for the work to be locally owned and planned, although my belief is that individuals who live in developing nations or under-resourced communities can't do this work alone, they need allies who may have access to more resources. Lately, I've been thinking about how to develop social capital between western communities and communities in the developing world. I don't think you can solve these problems, without developing this social capital. Perhaps you could continue leverage the students ability to raise funds, have them come over to participate in a collaborative process in a way that make sense, and keep it locally owned? Anyway, I'd be happy to chat further. Here's my email kleventhal@mednet.ucla.edu. Our website is: http://tcsip.tarjancenter.ucla.edu/resources.cfm