Expert Advice

Online Social Media As Cocktail Party

Using Facebook, Twitter, or any other social media tool in fundraising means following the proper party etiquette

How do I get the agency to use online social media in our fundraising?

This question came in a phone conversation with a client of Consulting Within Reach. She’s the executive director of one of the county’s largest social service organizations. It’s an excellent nonprofit doing good work, but it definitely has a more “traditional” feel to its culture, and has had minimal to no online social media presence so far.

Since I knew the organization well, I realized that I needed to start by first framing the purpose and cultural context of this new media for a nonprofit like hers. To do this, I resorted to my favorite metaphor for the topic (courtesy of my friend Christine Egger at Social Actions): the cocktail party.

Imagine that your organization is holding your annual fundraising dinner. Before the guests are seated for their meal, there is customarily a cocktail party where everyone lingers in the lobby, sipping drinks and chatting.

Now imagine the following behaviors on your part and how well each would go down with the crowd.

You jump up to stand on the bar, grab a microphone, and proceed to lecture the crowd nonstop about your organization’s accomplishments.
You circulate through all the small groups and hand to everyone a printed set of message points about your cause that you want covered in the conversation.
You have your staff circulate through all the small groups with those old school manual credit card imprinters, asking for on the spot donations.

Each behavior would be gauche, wouldn’t it? Any executive director knows that those actions are inappropriate for the purpose and cultural context of the cocktail party.

Purpose and cultural context are critical to figuring out correct behavior. There are times when it is actually expected that you will grab the microphone and fill up the airspace with your organization’s achievements. But that happens in the designated program portion of the fundraising dinner.

There are times when it would be wise for the leader to make sure everyone is on message. But that should happen before the event and just with the staff team.

And there are times when you should ask for donation in an easy to give fashion. But that happens best at the end of the evening.

So how does an organization start using online social media for fundraising?

By first realizing that online social media is the cocktail party. It’s not the main program for the evening. It’s not a “messaging opportunity” to manage. And it’s not even really meant to be the fundraiser itself.

The key for an organization that doesn’t come naturally to online social media is to internalize the cocktail party metaphor and then adjust their behavior accordingly. And here are three of the most common adjustments we’ve had to help our clients make.

Converse, don’t lecture
Let others talk
Friend-raise, not fundraise

For the sake of space, I’ll cover the first one here and the others in my next post.

1. Converse, don’t lecture.

This is the biggest shift for some leaders. They can become so accustomed to thinking of all media as broadcast channels that they don’t realize that the whole point of online social media is that it breaks up the traditional one way relationship between speaker and audience. The new media is designed to facilitate conversations: some of them between the speaker and the audience but even more between audience member and audience member.

One hint: if your organization’s Facebook page is starting to resemble a stripped down version of your web page, chances are that you’re doing the equivalent of jumping on the bar and grabbing the microphone. You should be using an online social media tool to do things that a website – more designed for broadcasting then conversing -- doesn’t do as well: like get feedback on events, quick polls, giving real time updates, and others.

The nice thing about conversation is that you get more timely feedback than you do with lecture. Use this key advantage of the medium to learn more about your audience. The best conversationalists are always the ones who ask the best questions, so start your first attempts in the medium with what would be interesting questions for your audience.

Here are some examples:

As an organization, we’re thinking about doing X this new year. What do you think?
We’re launching this program in a few months but don’t have a name for it. What are your ideas?
What other organizations do you support and why?
We’re not sure we’re offering meaningful volunteer opportunities. What are you looking for?

Now, here’s the other key to cocktail party conversations: you have to genuinely want to know what your audience thinks about these questions. You have to want to know for the sake of knowing your audience, not just as a segue into fundraising.

People can tell when there is genuine interest. There’s nothing worse than that person at a party who asks, “So, how are you?” and then during your reply is constantly glancing over your shoulder for who else is present at the party. Or just as bad, who nods impatiently through your reply and interrupts to say, “What I really wanted to talk to you about was… “

Genuine interest doesn’t of course mean you will adopt their suggestions of course. But it will probably involve some sort of time and effort. Again, people can tell. Not every organization is ready to open itself to that kind of input. And not every leader is willing to devote organizational bandwidth to engaging in that kind of conversation.

That’s OK. You don’t have to. But it just means that you shouldn’t be throwing this particular party.

Next post: Letting others talk and Friend-raising

Why having to constantly fundraise is good

The desire for that one big donor to take care of it all is understandable. It's also misguided.

"How do I interest a big funder in my mission so I don’t have to spend so much time constantly finding new donors?"

What the questioner is seeking is what many executive directors put on their wish lists: “a sugar daddy.”

“A sugar daddy” – it could just as easily be a “sugar momma” these days – is a donor who comes along and funds you to such an extent that your need to fundraise is significantly alleviated. This can be an institutional funder – the Gates Foundation is playing “sugar daddy” to a large number of initiatives – or a wealthy individual who takes a particular interest in your work.

A sugar daddy is certainly an alluring gift. Who wouldn’t want to be freed from having to locate new donors? Who wouldn’t want to concentrate more of your time on your primary work of serving your clients?

There’s no concrete strategy to getting one. It’s almost impossible to proactively acquire such a donor. Sugar daddies are those rare phenomenon that just plop into your lap. It could be a wealthy individual who has something in her background that makes her identify with your cause. Or it could be that a foundation’s new strategic priorities just happen to magically and perfectly align with your organization.

But if I can’t give much advice on how to fulfill your wish for a sugar daddy, then in this holiday season at least I can offer this consolation: sugar daddies usually aren’t very good for you.

At least a couple of my clients have something resembling a sugar daddy – either an individual or a foundation – and I notice a recurrent set of problems.

The first is that the organizations don’t feel the urgency to broaden their fundraising base. In both cases, the prmary funders communicated a wish that the organizations diversify their funding source over time. In both cases, there was minimal action taken on this until very late in the game. It’s human nature to act on what is most urgent. If funding is taken care of for the next year, then that urgency is going to get directed elsewhere.

This means the organization is regularly exposed to the huge risk of the sugar daddy going away suddenly. The number of organizations that got wiped out because their big donor lost money in the recent financial crises or scandals (the Madoff scam was particularly damaging to a set of small nonprofits in New York).

The second problem is even more dangerous and the one I most care about. I believe having a sugar daddy jeopardiazes not just funding for the mission, but the mission itself.

Most nonprofits exist to serve some aspect of society that is otherwise isolated, ignored, or neglected by key institutions. The homeless, the orphans, the immigrants, and others often are suffering because they aren’t properly integrated with the rest of society. The nonprofit’s mission is to help make that connection for their clients.

Fundraising forces you as the leader to engage with key social actors. It’s a mistake to think that fundraising is a distraction from your work with your clients. Rather fundraising is how you serve your clients in this critical function of connection.

Fundraising forces you to get out there and meet people, important people. Good fundraisers know they constantly have to hunt and gather, turn over rocks, sniff around. This means spending the time to seek out relationships with business people, philanthropic figures, government figures, community leaders, and more. Experienced nonprofit leaders will tell you about some helpful information they gained in fundraising that didn’t necessarily lead to a donation, but did lead to a strategic partnership, to learning about an important community development, to finding out about a new strategy, and more. All of that networking led to some favorable outcome for their clients that the clients, by themselves, could never have achieved.

I can testify that this dynamic is true in my own line of work. For a consulting firm like mine, new business development is the equivalent of fundraising. And I’d be lying if I told you I didn’t sometimes get tired of going out there and pounding the pavement. I’ve wished for my own version of a “sugar daddy:” that one big client that would pay all the bills in one big project.

But the regular discipline of having to uncover leads, cultivate them, learn from them, and stay in touch means I am regularly in touch with what is happening in my sector on a wide variety of issues. And that helps me serve my clients. For instance, right now a potential client who works in youth development is asking me whether I can help him ascertain candidates for a merger. I know the candidates in the field pretty well, having met and talked with many of them. The only reason I developed that body of relationships and knowledge is because I had to hunt and gather in their space, looking for business. Because I didn’t have a sugar daddy.

Fundraising doesn’t just pay the bills so that we can serve our clients, fundraising itself is how we serve our clients.

So this holiday season, if you don’t find a sugar daddy in your stockings, be of good cheer. They’re bad for your teeth.

Finding a mentor

One excellent predictor of success for a social entrepreneur is the presence of a good mentor. But how do you find one? And - gulp! - might you have to pay for one?

"What advice do you have for someone just starting out in the field? Do you think it's worthwhile to enroll in a formal academic program in social entrepreneurship?"

There are a growing number of academic programs specializing in social entrepreneurship. To name just a few examples from my own backyard, Stanford Business School Center for Social Innovation and UC Berkeley Haas School of Business's Center for Nonprofit and Public Leadership provide excellent offerings at the graduate level. At the undergraduate level, University of Pacific Global Center for Social Entrepreneurs is a new and highly innovative program.

I think that these academic programs can serve as fine routes for the aspiring social entrepreneur. But they also have their costs. The graduate programs I listed above aren’t cheap. And undergraduate programs assume that you will already know you want to pursue this career before you are twenty years old.

So to answer the reader’s question, I think it is more helpful to highlight one critical element that drives all successful academic programs of any sort: mentorship.

Most graduates who report a satisfying experience in their academic experience – at any level and on any topic – point to a relationship with a mentor. To become successful, everyone needs a coach who’s been there before, can point the way, will provide correction and encouragement, and will serve as a role model. That’s just how humans learn to do anything.

And more than any other benefit, what academic programs provide are concrete opportunities for this mentor relationship. The best programs structure them so that they are readily available for all students. The best students are the ones who avidly seek them out.

But you can find mentors without being a formal student. In fact, the advantages of seeking mentorship outside the walls of academia are that you will have a wider range of options.

Look around. Ask yourself the following questions:

Who has created or significantly grown an enterprise?
Who has a proven track record?
Who is respected in their field?
Who has passion for their endeavor?
Who seems to enjoy helping others?

Note that I did not include, “Who has an established career in social entrepreneurship?” I don’t think that most people, especially in the early stages, need someone with specific social sector expertise. The skills you need early on are more generally applicable.

In fact, a nonprofit background in a mentor can be a handicap. My most important mentor is a friend who had been a very successful Silicon Valley executive, but without any significant nonprofit expertise. This absence, in my opinion, was an advantage. He hadn’t been conditioned with the usual assumptions. He could entertain freely my budding thoughts without any “Well, that’s not the way things are done.” And he injected best practices from the corporate world that further stimulated my creativity.

There is any number of opening ways to find a mentor. It’s always easiest to start with your existing network. But don’t be afraid to cast your net wide: ask friends to recommend someone or to even cold call. You’re not getting married to a mentor: it isn’t a life long or monogamous relationship, so you can afford to try lots of people out.

Start by asking for a 30 minute informational interview and see if things click. And just like with a first date and marriage, don’t propose mentorship right away. At the end, if it goes well, ask if the person would be willing to meet with you again in the future – perhaps in a couple of months – if and when you have more questions.

And one of the best ways to make sure that the second date goes well and might lead to more is if you actually do something with the input you’ve just received. Mentors don’t have time or energy to mentor everyone. The best ones have the least time. So they are only interested in investing in people who will actually apply the lessons they’ve just delivered. Don’t ask for another time just so you can shoot the breeze. Come ready with something like “I tried what you suggested, and it led to some more questions…. .”

If this process leads to a more regular mentorship, there is one final point I’d like to emphasize: just because tuition isn’t involved doesn’t mean that it should be free. You’re absorbing valuable time and expertise. You need to signal that you recognize and value what’s being provided. This doesn’t have to happen right away, but at some point you should pay, or at least offer to pay.

There is something about our sector that too often expects people should just give us stuff for free. Perhaps the constant necessity of fundraising reinforces this posture. But it is a bad habit to get into if you're starting out in this field. Unless you are off the charts charismatic or are living an off the charts morally compelling life like Mother Teresa, you won't get very far unless you are ready to pay for value.

This is why framing academic programs as a form of structured mentorship is helpful. We fully expect that we will pay tuititon for the mentoring time regularly spent with professors. The same expectation should apply to the mentoring time regularly spent with those outside academia.

Keep in mind that the form of payment doesn’t have to be financial, although it is probably cleanest when it is. The mentor I mentioned above started out doing it as a favor to me as a friend. We met maybe once a month when I was just conceiving of my firm. I always made it an explicit point to schedule our times over lunch and would pick up the tab. But as my business grew, I needed to talk to him more regularly. I had started to pay him for some of the actual project work he was doing for my clients, but it didn’t cover our mentoring sessions. In other words, I was demonstrating I valued him for what he did for others, but not necessarily for what he did for me. Eventually, we agreed that an hourly paid coaching arrangement made the most sense.

This has been the best for both of us. He doesn’t have to struggle with resenting my requests, and I don’t have to feel shy about asking for help when I really need it. Some people might feel strange about paying their friends, but I think the financial arrangement protects our friendship.

Do I think every mentor needs to be paid? No, but every mentor should be given the option. It's not that your mentors in most cases will need the money. It's that human beings need their efforts to be valued and appreciated. Offering money is simply the cleanest way to signal that value and appreciation. They may decline and continue to offer themselves freely, but they should get to choose. You proactively making that offer will demonstrate a maturity and wisdom that is worthy of mentorship.

If you don’t have money, think of what else you can offer. If you’re a student approaching a faculty member, offer to provide volunteer research assistance. That is an excellent way to learn the subject matter and have an excuse to spend a lot of time with the faculty member.

If you're not a student, think of the skills you have that could serve your mentor. Barter babysitting services or computer technical support, or some other skills. One of my friends who wanted regular coaching from me is a high end professional hair stylist, and she offered to pay me in the form of regular hair cuts. As a former patron of Super Cuts, I gladly accepted.

Show the mentor that you are… well, entrepreneurial.

Mapping the ecosystem

We need to map whole systems, and not just measure individual nonprofits. And it may surprise us who the real all stars are.

“I am in the process of developing a network of artists, organizations, and corporations where the exchanges will benefit each other. How do I start creating an ecosystem along these lines?”

I like the way this questioner is thinking. Rather than just thinking about what his own nonprofit should do, he is also thinking about what the entire ecosystem should be like. Ecosystem thinking is critical: it factors in the relationships, dependencies, conflicts, and other key dynamics that affect everyone. Taken together, these relationships comprise the ocean in which everyone swims.

And you can save a lot more whales by saving the ocean – versus concentrating on just individual whales.

I also like the reader's question because it also gives me an excuse to go on about a pet topic of mine: namely, ecosystem mapping.

This is an absolutely critical step in the change process the questioner hopes to initiate.

Before you start trying to create or even change an ecosystem, the first step is always to map the existing ecosystem. And you may discover in the mapping process that the most important creature isn’t the whale.

Let me mash into the aquatic metaphor yet another one drawn from sports.

One of my favorite basketball players is Shane Battier of the Houston Rockets. For the casual fan, this would seem like an odd selection. Measured by the most widely used stats to gauge player performance – points, rebounds, and assists – Battier isn’t found on any leader list.

Even on his own team.

Compared to Battier, nine other Rockets players score more points, four grab more rebounds, and five garner more assists.

Yet, according to a fascinating article in the New York Times, the Houston Rockets have demonstrated statistically that Shane Battier should be considered one of the most valuable players in the whole league.

This is because the Rockets are fanatical about conceiving of their team as one ecosystem, not as a collection of individual talent. Almost alone in the NBA, the front office captures a whole set of data that map the different roles a player has in contributing to overall team success, and not just to their own individual stats.

It turns out that although Battier doesn’t score many points himself, he routinely guards the opposing team’s best scorer (like Kobe Bryant) and disrupts that player’s scoring efficiency almost more than anyone else can. He doesn’t grab many rebounds but he leads the team in strategically blocking out opponents so his teammates can do so. He doesn’t get assists because he’s regularly setting effective screens so Rockets guards can find the open man. All told, the Rockets believe they can demonstrate how Shane Battier impacts the outcomes of games more than all but a handful of NBA players.

These conclusions aren’t just artful and subjective judgments. The Rockets front office measures and records objectively how well each of their players occupy such team oriented roles. The players are graded, reported on, and financially rewarded accordingly. This statistical emphasis on measuring team contribution probably explains why the Rockets made it to the conference finals, pushing the supposedly much more talented Lakers team to seven games despite losing their two “best” (by standard metrics) players.

Different measurements will favor different types of players, highlighting some realities but also overlooking others. In the philanthropy world, as we evolve towards greater measurement, what we especially must guard against is overlooking the “Shane Battier” type of nonprofits. These are nonprofits that play an indispensable role in the ecosystem, even if their individual stats are pedestrian.

Suppose a funder is evaluating two nonprofits in San Jose (my hometown) that work with the unemployed in the low income population.

Kobe Agency serves 15,000 clients annually at a cost of $9,000 per client and a return of 60% employment achieved.

Shane Agency serves 5,000 clients annually at a cost of $13,000 per client and a return of 30% employment achieved.

Is Kobe Agency the better investment? By conventional metrics, it would seem so.

What if we collected the following ecosystem data:

a. number of referrals from other agencies

b. nonprofit concentration within the area

c. types of funding sources

And suppose we discover that Kobe Agency gets hardly any clients via other agency referrals. But Shane Agency gets referrals from five different other employment agencies, including Kobe Agency. This is because Shane is the only agency in the entire region that has expertise in working with Vietnamese immigrants, and other agencies send such cases their way.

In a related fashion, we find that while Kobe Agency is better known (having a larger geographical reach covering downtown and the east side) there are nevertheless three other lesser known “competitive” agencies in its area. In contrast, Shane Agency is the only employment agency present in the south. In fact, there are very few nonprofits per capita in the Shane's area compared to Kobe’s area.

Finally, Kobe Agency gets 75% of its budget from government contracts, while Shane Agency gets only 20%, meaning it is much more dependent on private giving.

So, where will a philanthropic dollar have greatest impact?

It is of course not clear, even with the new data, that Shane is a better investment. And it certainly doesn't mean the money shouldn’t go to the Kobe Agency.

But the new data does make Shane Agency and those like it a much more plausible candidate than before. Even though it serves less clients with less favorable dollar/client ratios, the agency is nevertheless critical to the whole ecosystem. Take it out of the picture, and suddenly its absence impairs the operations of five other agencies which rely on it as a key referring destination. And the neighborhood also loses a community pillar.

Indeed, when looking at the whole ecosystem, one might even conclude that Kobe Agency is actually more replaceable, given the other agencies present in its geography.

Ultimately, though, it’s not an either-or between all stars or role players, between whales or plankton. On every social need, we’ll need both types for overall success. It really is a team effort. But if it is truly a team effort, we can’t just measure individual performance. We have to map the entire ecosystem.

So this is a call out to creative funders and social entrepreneurs, “Are you ready to get started?”

Telling the (sadly short) history of mapping nonprofit ecosystems will have to await another entry. But here are some initial pointers that are close to my home:

My firm Consulting Within Reach recently partnered with the largest county government in Northern California and applied for federal stimulus funding to build a comprehensive, web based map of the county's nonprofit ecosystem. Like Kobe going to the hoop against Shane, we were rejected. But if you'd like to read our plan, you can download the ecosystem mapping project proposal here. I'd love your thoughts as to whether it would have been worth Uncle Sam spending .0000005 percent of what it spent on AIG.
Sara Olsen, who co-authors the Social Edge blog SVT on Impact, has started a similar mapping effort. It's very early stage but definitely bears watching.
Another good start is the Foundation Center's In/Sight mapping tool. It isn't open source and charges fees that will be prohibitive for many in the sector. Also, it just measures location and funding, not actual relationships with other agencies and service populations. But I'm nitpicking - it's a very impressive first effort.
The for profit enterprise that I have been most struck by so far is Rhiza Labs. I haven't yet talked to anyone who has used their product but it looks interesting.

Here are some other links to mapping related content by Jill Finlayson and Lucy Bernholz:

Do you have other leads and links to share? Post them below!

How do you keep on pitching... and not lose your soul?

A reflection on my time at the Opportunity Collaboration, the mother of all networking opportunities for small to mid size social entrepreneurs.

I’ve been here at the Opportunity Collaboration in Ixtapa, Mexico. For Western social entrepreneurs engaged in community based anti-poverty efforts, it was arguably the place to be. The concentration of quality small to mid-size nonprofits, thought leaders, and funders committed to this approach was quite remarkable.

I’m back now, replete with new relationships and interesting thoughts. I also brought back, if not Montezuma’s Revenge, then at least his deeply rooted bitterness.

I’m also absolutely exhausted. I’m feeling not just the kind of physical tiredness from international travel and being away from home, but a certain spiritual tiredness. The roots of this kind of exhaustion can be summed up in a statement I made to some folks sitting next to me as we were about to start lunch:

“I’m just so tired of trying to make myself seem interesting.”

I think everyone felt the same way. It’s the reality at these kinds of conferences – especially this one – that everyone is pitching their mission. The fact that the conference also had funders present made that dynamic even more palpable.

It is very rare for a social entrepreneur to succeed without being good at pitching. I met one guy at the conference who seemed to have done so. But he was a McArthur “genius award” fellow, and thus was the exception that proved the rule.

For the rest of us mortals, you have to be always ready to tell your story, and to do so seeming like you’re doing it with the same energy you did when you first began your venture. Try recounting the first time you had this heartbreaking exposure to abject poverty in Latin America or met an AIDS victim in Africa – and now do it at least six times a day, ready to do it again the moment someone next to you at lunch says, “So, what do you do?”

For some of us at least, this kind of repetition can bring about a certain numbness, a hardening to what once was a very precious and sensitive wellspring of motivation. It feels to me like taking my six year old’s hand made birthday card that she crafted just for me... and then xeroxing several thousand copies and mass mailing it out to complete strangers.

So what is a social entrepreneur to do? You can’t stop pitching. And the more successful you get, the more you will have to do it – only now people that you’ll have to work even harder to “make yourself seem interesting.” This usually means injecting in words like “scale” and “economic sustainability” anywhere you can in the narrative.

One night after dinner, I spotted this man with a one year old son sitting by themselves at a table. He had come along so his wife could fully participate in the conference. Given that this conference was such target rich environment for networking (and the nonprofit leaders all had spent several thousand precious dollars to be there), I hadn’t seen anyone approach them all week.

It turns out that he was a geophysicist who on the side made musical lutes. For those who didn’t know this – and that includes me – lutes had once been a popular instrument in the medieval ages but had almost gone extinct in the modern age. That is, until a small group of craftsmen rediscovered the art.

He was fascinating. It turns out that the art of lute making is one of the most non-scaleable, economically unsustainable enterprises imaginable. It takes an incredible amount of attentiveness and a delicate approach. Even the best lutemaker can only turn out a few each year. And they do so because they produce a sensuous, rich sound that is utterly unique for a listener.

So how does a social entrepreneur keep on pitching over and over without losing her soul?

I don’t know exactly.

But I think it may have something to do with lutes.

Putting Together Your First Board, Part II

How to look for true value

After making sure all your board members have the universal traits discussed below in the last entry, you should be looking to compose a board with a mixture of the following “Three M’s of Board Traits.” Very few members will contribute in all three ways, so the key is to construct a balanced lineup.

Every board member should be able to bring at least one of the following kinds of value.

1. Money

EDs sometimes make the mistake of giving board seats to their biggest donors. The key is not how much a potential board member gives; it’s how much she will ask others to give. Board seats should go to folks who can multiply their impact by broadening your base. A person who is willing to introduce you to 20 new $1,000 donors is far more valuable to someone who will write you a $20,000 check and do no more.

2. Mind

You need subject matter experts on your board. This is to provide not just guidance for your leadership but also to give legitimacy to your organization. For instance, if you work with international refugees but you don’t have a leader of a governmental agency, you’re going to be suspect in the eyes of other big funders.

3. Manpower

This is especially important for startups with small staff sizes. You need some roll up the sleeve contribution from the board in some competencies that otherwise would be beyond your reach. Marketing expertise is always valuable. Legal and financial management are also obvious areas to get pro bono help from the board.

When you’re assembling your board, you should be ruthless about making sure every invitee can make a major contribution in at least one of the “3 M’s.” Otherwise, there really isn’t a reason for their presence. A non-contributor exacts an “opportunity cost” in terms of what someone else could have offered in his stead. He also can exert a “culture cost” of dragging down overall board performance as other members start asking, “Why should I be busting my butt when that guy doesn’t do anything?

So don’t sacrifice. Get the board you really need.

For more on the board recruitment process, read this excellent article from Bridgespan.

Putting Together Your First Board, Part I

"I’m assembling my first Board of Directors. What traits should I be looking for?"

board of directors.jpg This is a huge, and often neglected topic for new social entrepreneurs. As such, I’m going to break my answer up into two columns.

Today, I’ll address some non-negotiable traits that should apply to ever board member. Next time, I’ll cover three basic traits that should collectively be present on your board as a whole.

Here are some traits that should be present in every member, especially at the startup phase.

1. Demonstrated commitment: A board member has to have already demonstrated that she cares about your cause in some tangible way, either by a significant donation and/or volunteer involvement. Sometimes this isn’t possible with a total startup, but still look for ways to gauge their commitment level before an invitation to the board.

A board position is giving someone who is already on board a hand at the tiller; it is not a first step on the gangway.

2. Alignment with you: Given this is your first board, each member should already be on board with your fundamental vision and values. You’re not looking for “yes” men/women, but you don’t want to spend valuable time at this stage hashing out the basics. Spend a lot of time in the board interview process on this one because differences at this early stage can really derail the organization.

3. Plays well with others: At the startup phase, you just don’t want to spend extra energy overly managing conflicts with or between board members. A board member should be someone with whom you and others on the board will look forward to spending a couple of hours.

4. Brings definable value to the mission by being a board member. I'll cover more about this in my next entry. But the key point is that it's not enough that the board candidate is already contributing something to the organization; he or she must be someone who will contribute more (and it doesn't have to be just money) by coming on to the board.

This one may seem obvious but somehow first time executive directors can forget this principle. It can be tempting to invite well meaning individuals who contribute a lot as volunteers, but whose contributions wouldn't change appreciably as a board member. Alternatively, an individual may really click with you and is well liked by everyone... but doesn't move the meter on the organization's progress.

Remember, these traits are absolutely non-negotiable for every member. Don’t try to talk yourself into anyone if it means squinting on one of these. You will almost certainly regret it.

Next entry: Defining value in a board member

More benefits of a web redesign

Revisiting a recent question about "When do I need a new website," here are some thoughts about the internal (versus just external perception) benefits of a redesign process.

In my last answer to the question “Why a new website?” I focused mainly on the benefits of an updated site for one’s external image.

But, as they say in those classic TV commercials selling kitchen gadgets, “BUT THAT’S NOT ALL!!!!”

Less well recognized is that a web development process can help a growing social enterprise internally.

Organizations that are growing in their early years are also defining themselves along the way. Where that journey takes is very difficult to predict when the founders sit around the table to sketch out the first website.

It follows that your first few websites will likely become outdated fairly quickly. That is, if you are actually succeeding. If you are truly discovering new things about your environment, making strategic changes in response, and growing your own organizational capacity, you'll want to communicate those changes via a changing website design.

Re-designing a web site can serve as a forcing mechanism: an event that compels stakeholders to make key decisions that they might otherwise avoid. There are other classic forcing mechanisms: making budget cuts and creating a three year plan are also potent means of defining organizational priorities, weaknesses, values, and more.

But web site design can work very powerfully also. Try asking your team if they can agree on what images convey the essence of your mission. Or have each person describe the most important viewer of your site and what he/she should come away thinking about your organization. I’ve witnessed something as simple as trying to figure out whether an icon really belongs on the home page lead to some very profound conversations.

And a web redesign can be a fun forcing mechanism. With a redesign -- unlike a budget cut or a white paper -- everyone ends up owning an actual product that the masses can see. There’s the opportunity for creativity. There is a visible landmark for those key conversations. And no one got laid off.

The longer lasting fruit that is possible in a redesign process doesn’t just happen automatically. Beware of just handing off the project to a junior member of the team or even worse, shifting responsibility to someone whose only expertise is the technical side of web development. It requires some seasoned leadership expertise to pose the right questions and offer up the most illuminating options. If your senior leadership has someone with experience in web design, that person should be tasked with that responsibility in a substantial fashion.

A thoughtful organizational process must drive the web redesign process. Any given site may not last; but what may endure are the dialogues, thinking, and decisions that went into its creation.

Build a great web site. But do it in a way that builds a great organization.

How important is scaling? - The growth fetish

"Would you caution professionals and thought leaders in the sector about over-emphasizing entrepreneurship and scaleability? Is all that grows really gold?"

It is commonly accepted that initial failure tests one’s motivation and commitment to one’s cause. The social entrepreneur is forced to ask, “Do I really care enough to keep going forward?”

But outsized success also brings a similar test. He entrepreneur has to ask, “Do I really care enough to stop and perhaps even reverse?”

In the 1990s, Patagonia was one of the fastest growing outdoor apparel companies in the world. It had grown from a niche brand targeting serious mountaineers and trekkers and was expanding its offerings into the broad market. It was achieving serious scale.

During that decade, founder/president Yvon Chouinard realized that the organizational soul of the company was getting lost in the rush to get bigger. Its traditionally flat management structure was getting more and more hierarchical. He also felt that the greater the scale of its manufacturing operations, the less it could control its environmental footprint.

Chouinard decided to slow growth and revise the corporate structure to realign with its deeply held value on egalitarianism. More important, it chose to revamp its clothing line by drastically reducing the use of conventionally grown cotton, which was judged to be one of the most environmentally destructive fibers on the planet (and crucial to the growth of almost every apparel company). In the process, Patagonia dropped 30 percent of its clothing, retreating from its penetration of the mass market.

Yet in the process, Patagonia achieved a different kind of scale.

One might call it “moral scale.” It was one of the first companies to offer employees onsite child care, maternity and paternity leaves, and other benefits. Other companies, including the Gap and Sam’s Club, look at it as a pacesetter for corporate ecological responsibility. It has pioneered ways an apparel company can recycle its products, even inviting customers to send in used items.

The case of Patagonia illustrates that social impact does not equal size. Indeed, size can be a barrier to certain kinds of impact. The impact that will be most powerful and lasting will be the one flowing from the deepest well springs of an entrepreneur’s values and passions, not an ever larger organization.

In my experience consulting with clients, the biggest temptation to lose one’s way is in trying to win the approval of philanthropies, especially the so called “social investors.” Their demand to show “a growth strategy” or a “model to scale” can all too easily become the tail that wags the dog.

In the face of such pressures, here’s a set of questions that a social entrepreneur should be regularly asking herself:

Am I happy? Seems like a trite question, but it’s too often ignored as a basic barometer.
Are my colleagues happy?
Why did I get into this game in the first place? Is that happening?
What values might be threatened by getting bigger?
What can my organization accomplish by being bigger that it cannot now?
Can someone else accomplish that outcome? Does it have to be us?
What will be the costs involved – including to my personal life – to getting much bigger?
If I didn’t have to worry about funding, what leadership decisions would I make?

When do I need a new website?

"Our website is a few years ago and some aspects are outdated. But it's hard for me to justify to the board (and me) the expense of redoing it in a major way. Should we just bite the bullet?"

Imagine a boutique store like Hermes that had a wonderful collection of merchandise, beautiful interior decorating, superior customer service, and a winning overall shopping experience.

Now can you imagine the store manager letting its storefront deteriorate to this?

That’s ludicrous of course. Yet all too many nonprofits operate this way. They concentrate on their program delivery, organizational growth, staff expertise, and impact measurement. But they skimp on their website, tolerating an outdated look, amateurish design, and limited functionality.

A website is your storefront, plain and simple. Most of your audiences will derive their first impression from it. A potential funder, program partner, volunteer, and general citizen will naturally go to your site first.

So when do you need a new site? Here are five tests to find out.

The pride test

Do you and your staff like to show it off? Is there any feeling of embarrassment or any excuse you have to make when someone says, “I looked you up on the site.”

The random viewer test

Ask a staff member to recruit 3-5 of their friends/neighbors who don’t know anything about your organization. Have these individuals take 5 minutes to look at your site. Then ask them these four questions:

What does the organization do?
Why does that matter?
What does the organization want me to do?
How would you grade the overall quality of the organization based on the website (A-F)?

If the answers don’t match up with how you would answer the questions, that’s a big red flag.

The benchmark test

Look at the websites of 2-3 of best nonprofits working in your field. Compare them side by side with your own site. If there’s a big disjunction in the viewing experience, you need to ask yourself, “Why?”

The expiration date test

Feathered hair cuts. Tailfins on cars. Boy George. Things go out of style and it is an embarrassment to not notice and adjust. Websites are no difference. In some cases, any individual style change may not be obvious, but the overall combination of aspects like font type, color scheme, graphics can communicate just how up to date the site is – and by extension, the organization is. If you haven’t had a major redesign of your site in the last 3-4 years, it’s time to take a look.

The features test

Does your site have the following features:

Flash display (moving images) on the home page
Content management system enabling you to update key content (i.e. a News page) by yourself
Viewer comments or some other way people can interact with your site
“Extensible” design, meaning it is built on commonly accepted developer frameworks (such as PHP) and thus can incorporate new functions easily

In the Western world, these features are all pretty much the standard. The developing world may have different benchmarks, but the reality is that the web tends to make all viewing standards increasingly the same.

At this point, some readers may be responding, “Sounds nice, but I can’t afford to get a updated site?”

I’ll try to address the expense issue in future entries. There are ways to look good without breaking the bank.

But ultimately, it’s a matter of priorities. Nonprofits spend the vast majority on what happens in their store. But if customers aren’t drawn in, it doesn’t matter. Nonprofits also keep wish more potential donors would hear about them and be interested in their work. But where will those interested parties go to first to form their impression of your organization?

So, if your appeal to donors and overall brand quality is suffering from a poor storefront, the question is really, “How can you afford not to?”

Filling out your lineup

"I lead a small staff team of 4 members and am looking to double the team size next year. What should I be considering as I hire?"

I serve as the owner for two teams very important to me: Consulting Within Reach and Bambino and Buck.

The latter is the name of my fantasy baseball team. Bambino was the nickname of Babe Ruth and Buck stands for Buck O'Neil, a wonderful Negro League player. For the uninitiated, fantasy baseball is a game where individual "owners" construct an imaginary team comprised of real major league baseball players.

In fantasy baseball, how well your team does is dependent on how well your lineup does in real life in certain statistical categories. If you owned Barry Bonds a few years ago, then your team got the credit for 73 home runs. If you own him today, well, the scoring categories don't include "number of grand jury indictments."

My wife sometimes complains about how much time I spend on this hobby. Hobby? "It's professional development!" I tell her, "The lessons I'm learning are invaluable!"

I'm only half kidding. In fact, there are some valuable lessons there for any leader of a social enterprise. If you are trying to build the right staff team around your cause, it's worth considering two basic tenets of building a winning fantasy baseball team.

1. Excellence, not

versatility

Some of the same reasons why I love fantasy baseball are the very same reasons why I love to lead CWR. Both endeavors require you to think strategically about how to assemble diverse individuals into one team. In fantasy baseball, the different scoring categories require you to construct a lineup with a proper balance of power hitting, speed, pitching, and other diverse skills.

Note that you need a lineup of super diverse talents, not necessarily one person with diverse talents. It's wonderful when you can find an excellent program manager, who is also a world class fundraiser, who can also master Quickbooks, and make a great quiche on the side. But those folks are rare.

More often than not, trying for it all in one person means you get someone who is just mediocre at all of the skills

So, hire for excellence at your most core needs and think about how to fill out the rest of your lineup. Outsourcing, volunteers, sharing with other organizations are all strategies to try along these lines - and ones this column will undoubtedly discuss in the future.

2. Assembling a deep bench

In baseball, players go down. We forget that the same happens in nonprofits. Your staff will relocate, get pregnant and want to stay at home, be hired away by the competition, or get sick.

In my experience, the talent level at these organizations is generally quite high at the Executive Director and other senior posts. But the drop off can be quite steep as you move down the organizational chart. Thus, when a senior leader retires, takes another job, or falls ill, the organization can really suffer. And even without any sudden departure, organizational effectiveness is still curtailed because the overall talent is too thin.

You need to be always thinking about developing the next layer of leaders, even if you're a small team. Even if you don't have a staff opoening, talent spotting for the future should be a constant activity.

The fact that you lack financial resources should not necessarily prevent you from constructing the roster you need to achieve your mission. If you have a compelling cause, you are already richer than many, many corporations out there.

What are you doing to fill out your lineup?

Peter Barshay

Do I need an NDA? How can I protect my idea?

Q: Is it possible to get expert advice on funding an idea without sharing it before it's ready to be shared? What is the best way to proceed?

Patrick O'Heffernan responds:

Expert advice can be a tricky matter. While you can ask for a non-disclosure document, most experts will not sign them because that subjects them to potential litigation later on, even if they never disclose anything to anybody. I for one, will not sign them and none of the investment groups I work with will. Personal trust is usually a better way to go.

If you are afraid your idea will be stolen, bring on the experts you need as partners or early stage investors, develop it thoroughly to the point where you are ready to run with it and then take it to VC's or angels. Your best protection is not an NDA, but a head start. If there is IP or a unique product or process, you can apply for a patent - the application itself will put you ahead of any competitors, honest or otherwise. Check out the USPTO.

As far as bringing an idea to the investment community, it is not a good idea to circulate or present unformed ideas to investors. You may only get one shot at them and you don't want to waste it. Even if you get more than one shot, it is possible to leave an impression that you are not thorough - and therefore not a good risk.

The bottom line however is if you are thinking of a product or process that requires expert engineering or other input, work it through as far as your expertise and research can take it, then form a business business relationship with the experts you need. At some point it is likely you will have to create some kind of a business relationship with people who have technical expertise that you need.

Finally, don't take this as legal advice and do consult an attorney.

David Vitrant

How to setup my business model?

Q: I am starting a new social venture called FundScience Inc. The basic plan is to use social networking and microfinancing techniques to get the public to fund pilot research projects up to $50,000.

I have a lot of interested individuals, and a good team (for technical, legal and financing advice). As a geneticist turned non-profit Entrepreneur, I'm at a lack for how to setup my model (like donorchoose) and making sure my Business Plan is perfect.

Since my goal is to give 100% to research, to be transparent, and push openness and collaboration out the door I was hoping Social Edge might be able to guide me along the process.

Patrick O'Heffernan responds:

First, let me say that this is a very intriguing idea and one that may resonate well if done right. However, there are some questions that you need to ask and answer before you move forward with it and before you write your business plan:

1) What kind of pilot research projects?
I assume that the projects would all have a public interest benefit, and the low investment you are seeking underscores that, but "pilot projects" can cover a lot of ground, especially when you identify yourself as a geneticist. What kind of projects? Who will be researchers be? Where will the take place? Will they involve human subjects (and if so, so you have the necessary committees and permits)? Who will benefit from them? Will they involve GMO's? etc, etc. The point here is that social networking opens you up to a a general public who as a rule does not necessarily embrace research, but will embrace testing products that have demonstrable benefits for identifiable people. A project testing stoves that do not require charcoal and thus reduce the demand for forest destruction in central Africa would work; a pilot testing solar panels in the same area that are imported from California at high prices might not. The point is, set criteria for your projects that give investors confidence that they will attract microfinance investment.

2. 100% to research?
How are you going to pay for the operation. DonorChose spends $1.7 million in overhead each year. Giving grants to projects is not free - you will need time and staff to vet projects, to do site visits, to comply with (some pretty onerous) laws about sending money to non US non-profits, to file NPO papers, for 990 forms, etc. If you are not going to charge overhead, how do you intend to support the organization in the long term. Investors will want to be paid back and donors will want to see that you are sustainable. Don't rely on foundation grants - begging is not a good business strategy, even for NPOs.

3. The perfect business plan.
There may be a perfect business plan, but you should write the imperfect plan and circulate it, not wait for the perfect plan. It will evolve as you learn more and as more people see it and offer advice and resources. Since you are using the term business, I assume you will be making a profit. Your plan needs to detail where your revenue will come from. You said 100% to research, so are you going to make money from advertising, from patents, from licensing? If you are looking for investors, even social investors will want to see a revenue stream, a market analysis, comparable companies, a 5 year cash-flow analysis, when you intend to go in the black and how, and a plan for the use of their money. You will also have to determine your ROI - return on investment, both financial and social. If these are pilot projects, it is likely some will not work - that is why they are pilot. You will have to subtract the cost of those that don't work from the outputs of those that do - a process every venture investor is familiar with and builds into her or his portfolio of investments.

I recommend that you get a copy of this week's Chronicle of Philanthropy and read the article on Direct Connections about NPOs that are experimenting with the model that you are proposing. You will gain good insight into the thinking that went into organizations like DonorChose and Kiva and how they remain stable.

And good luck. As an MIT alum, I love your idea!

Kate Henry

Filed Under:

Apple

How to add podcasts to our website

Q: I'm the Executive Director of the Fresno Nonprofit Advancement Council and I would like to figure out how to add podcasts to our website and links to podcasts on our partners' websites.

Patrick O'Heffernan responds:

So, you want to start a podcast? Well, fortunately, not only is it easy and inexpensive, there is lots of advice on the web on how to do it.

Before I give you a list of websites that can take you step by step through the process, my advice is to use a Mac. Apple's Macintosh computers are designed for podcasting: they come with the software built–in (GarageBand) and a hosting service (iWeb) that does it all for you. You will need:

• A microphone
If your PC came with a Creative or Labtec microphone , you can use that but you should get a good microphone. You can buy an adequate mic at a computer store for $15 -$20 or you can spend up to $100. In general, the quality of the microphone is the most important determinant of the quality of your sound. Also, get a small table-top stand for it and a breath cover or screen to eliminate that "breathless effect".

• A connecting cable
You need to get a cable if the mic does not come with one that plugs into the jack in your computer. Or, if it does but it is the wrong size, you will need an adapter. RadioShack should have everything you need.

• Software
If you use a Mac, it comes with GarageBand, which has a podcast element. If you use a PC, try WebPod Studio for Windows or Audacity (which you can download here).

• Headphones
Good ones. You will appreciate them.

• A Podcast host
If you use a Mac, just sing up for iWeb and follow the instructions to set up a podcast host. It costs about $100 a year. If you use a PC, try Podbean. It is free and easy.

• A quiet room
...with lots of soft surfaces that absorb sound. Don't forget to turn off your phone when you start a recording!

• Something to say
It helps to outline or even script your podcast, at least a first.

For step by step, check out these sites:
- http://www.jakeludington.com/podcasting/20050222_recording_a_podcast.html
- http://www.macworld.com/2005/04/secrets/junecreate/index.php
- http://www.howtostartapodcast.com/

Robin Tierney

Filed Under:

Education

How to structure a sliding scale for scholarships

Q: I am setting up a non-profit scholarship foundation aimed at teaching students with learning disabilities. We are at the point where we need to structure a sliding scale for the scholarships. How do we go about setting something like that up?

Patrick O'Heffernan responds:

First, establish the criteria. Colleges often use the following data:
* Household income
* Existing savings for college
* Outside earnings (summer jobs, campus jobs)
* Other aid (fellowships, salary for serving as a lab tech or teaching associate
* Athletic scholarships
* Major

These are a good place to start.

Depending on your objectives, you might add in or substitute gender, sexual orientation, disability and/or race. Don't forget to check with your attorney that recent legal decisions will not impact your effort.

When you have determined which criteria can best achieve your objectives (such as "encourage women of color from lower income families to obtain degrees in engineering"), determine metrics and assign points to your criteria to determine the amount of the scholarship. In the example above, your sliding scale might look like this this:

Family income:
* $0 - $30k/year = 5 points
* $31k - $40K = 4 points
* $41k - $55k = 3 points
* $56k - $65K = 2 points
* Over $65k = 0 points

Financial criteria:
* College savings (set up point scale)
* Outside earnings (set up point scale)
* Other aid (set up point scale)
* Athletic scholarships (set up point scale)
etc.

Then allocate your scholarships based on points; the more points the more aid.

Rachel Levi

Filed Under:

Business Models

Should I launch a hybrid?

Q: I am currently the owner and clinical director of Shoreline Center for Eating Disorder Treatment. I want to provide scholarships for "Satori House," my extended care residential care home, for those in recovery from anorexia nervosa or bulimia nervose who would not otherwise be able to provide this type of care.

I want to continue the for profit business, but add an "arm" that can fundraise and award scholarships. I am trying to determine if I have to create a non-profit or if there is a way I can do this without doing all that.

Any thoughts on combinding non and for profit business would be apppreciated.

Patrick O'Heffernan responds:

While I cannot give you legal advice and I suggest you do consult a lawyer, forming a non profit corporation will depend on what you want to do..

Do you plan to raise money? If you plan to raise money for the scholarships and then give it to recipients, you will need a NPO so your donors can take the tax deduction. However, if the NPO pays the for-profit for the services, that payment is taxable income to the for-profit. There is no deduction for you, just for your donors.

Do you plan to provide free facilities? If you plan to just provide facilities for free and call it a scholarship, you don't need a NPO. I cannot advise you on the tax deductibility of providing a free service at a for-profit firm, but I assume that the cost of providing the service will already be deducted from your overall income. Check with an attorney.

Do you intend to donate cash to the scholarship fund? If so, the scholarship fund needs to be a NPO so you can deduct the donation from your income (or the firm's income if the firm does the donating). However, check with an attorney because the IRS may object to your donating tax deductible money to a fund that pays it back to you.

If you do have to set up a NPO, DON'T pay an attorney thousands of dollars to do it. Check the seminars at the Foundation Center and Nolo Press on how to do it yourself or with minimum legal cost.

Nancy Williams

My work is at a pivotal point!

Q: My work is at a pivotal point and I do not know which direction to follow. Please, is anyone of the Social Edge team willing to put in a pro-bono hour or two with me to determine my best laid course? In a nutshell, I have developed several grassroots Montessori-based teacher training modules and courses that will contribute greatly to significantly increasing quality teachers and am stuck in the funding and marketing aspects.

Patrick O'Heffernan responds:

Social Edge cannot offer pro bono consulting --we have very limited resources. I would direct you to the Foundation Center in San Francisco, which offers many free seminars and very inexpensive courses in just the topics you are looking for. Also, you can use their Foundation Directory online for free there, where you can do sophisticated searches for funders, often with advice from the staff. Finally, I would take a look at elearning and at the Media Education Foundation for good ideas.

Mae: Hybrid Structure?

Filed Under:

Q: If a start up organization wants to have a hybrid structure, at what point and what tools are needed to develop a hybrid from the start-up phase? Do you make one business plan outlining the structure/models and smaller business plans for each entity/venture?

See all Hybrid Model discussions and advice on Social Edge HERE. (updated August 2008)

Patrick O'Heffernan responds:

Before writing business plans for either, make sure you have good legal and tax advice. Many of the advantages of having both a for-profit organization and a non-profit one derive from tax advantages of the NPO, but these vary with each country's tax laws and accounting codes.

If you set up two completely separate organizations, this may not be an issue unless they deal with each other, have interlocking boards, share space or people --then your first tool is a tax lawyer with knowledge of NPO law in your country.

Since you don't indicate if the startup is being planned or is in existence, I will assume that it is being planned. I would consider using a hybrid
structure from the beginning if you have the opportunity. This will allow you to base your business plan on revenue streams from both NPO grants and for-profit operations. More important, it will allow you to see the synergies that you can take advantage of between the two.

But first, get legal and tax advice.

Nisha Khetan on Capital for Innovative Social Businesses

Filed Under:

Funding

Q: In association with Development Gateway Foundation, Intellecap is starting an online portal to connect investors and investees with a multiple bottom line approach. It will play an active role in attracting capital from both donors and investors to innovative social businesses. For supporting business development, it will also create an on-line network of service providers like investment, legal advisory, marketing, etc.

1) What are some of the services that could be a value-add for either investors or social businesses?

2) What are the value-added services that can be provided for investors?

Patrick O'Heffernan responds:

This is an excellent idea --one that is needed and one that will be well used. Similar ventures exist in the political realm to connect donors with non-profits or 527 organizations.

In the cases I am familiar with, the donors and investors remain unnamed to prevent the site from becoming a search engine for development officers looking for more leads and sending unsolicited proposals to investors who do not want them.

More importantly, keep in mind that it is very likely you will be visited by many more social entrepreneurs than investors or donors. If this occurs and is not anticipated, criticism and cynicism from the social entrepreneurs will begin to show up on the site and on other sites in discussion boards, undercutting what you are trying to do. I would strongly suggest that:

- you consider lining up your investors first and be sure you have a strong critical mass of investors before launch

- you find a fair and equitable way to limit the number of entrepreneurs chasing your limited number of investors at any given time

- when investment is made, your site posts a case study or news note, not naming the investor, but naming the NPO or entrepreneur so other entrepreneurs can see that your site really does result in successes

I don't know if you were thinking of charging a fee to service providers for listing or advertising on the site, but if so, I discourage it. Some of them might get business as a result of appearing on the site, but most entrepreneurs who visit the site will not have the need for or resources for accountants, lawyers, PR, etc - they are looking for cash. They also likely have some of those relationships in place.

Having said all of that, you might consider working with the donors/investors to offer entrepreneurs not only cash, but a package of services that the donor feels they need to succeed.

Those could include:
- Legal and tax consulting
- Market research
- Banking and investment advice
- PR
- Accounting
- Management consulting
- IT consulting
- Human Resources/benefits
- Insurance
- Staff development/employment agency

If you have a pool of pre-qualified, highly competent, ethical and dedicated service providers, the donors can offer packages of cash and services, using this pool.

Good luck!

Shaheen Hamid on Empowering Women

Q: I am exploring ways of empowering women in developing countries through education and self awareness and nurturing their spirits, (I know there are numerous programs already in place, but more are needed). The aim is to have a ripple effect in positively influencing their children, husbands and families. I envision starting long distance training for corporate women to generate revenues which can be applied to help low/no income women.

Is there someone who will help fine tune this idea and work with me to make it practically possible?

Patrick O'Heffernan responds:

There are four organizations that I work with that seek to do this, the Global Fund for Women and the International Museum for Women (IMOW), both in San Francisco. The GFW understands fully Kofi Annan's words that nations which marginalize the female half of their population will never succeed financially, politically or culturally. The GFW provides grants to organizations that help women get an educational start businesses, escape from poverty and brutality and religious or sexual slavery. They also build women leaders in developing countries. I cannot praise them enough.

IMOW works to demarginalize women by bringing their works and successes out of the shadows and letting the world know that women have been responsible for at lest half of humanity's progress. IMOW seeks to educate men while it gives women voice. Their "Imagining Ourselves" online exhibition attracted over 1 million participants - many from developing countries - mostly women who told their stories and the stories of the heroines of their countries in art, song, dance, poetry, stories. Going through the online exhibition is a breathtaking experience. And it does not ignore men...they are represented, telling stories about the women that inspire them.

The Center for Partnership Studies in Carmel, founded by best-selling author of The Chalice and the Blade, Riane Eisler, seeks to educate men and women about the inherent structure of many societies that puts men in a position of dominance over women - and over other men - by devaluing the work and role of women and of caring in society .

Regionally, NamesteDirect Foundation provides small grants and technical assistance to women in Guatemala, Ecuador and southern Mexico to help them become financially independent. There are many micro loan organizations like this, but I work with them and love to see the power they give women in male-dominated so-called "traditional" societies.

Sections

Personal tools

Document Actions

Jan 11, 2010

Dec 12, 2009

Nov 27, 2009

Nov 11, 2009

Oct 23, 2009

Oct 11, 2009

Oct 08, 2009

Oct 02, 2009

Sep 06, 2009

Sep 05, 2009

Sep 04, 2009

Sep 09, 2008

Aug 07, 2008

Jul 30, 2007

Jul 14, 2007

Jun 05, 2007

May 29, 2007

May 22, 2007

May 15, 2007

May 08, 2007

Twitter Updates