How can the nonprofit sector recruit the Catherine Markoskys of the world from the for-profit sector?

Beside every well-organized nonprofit is an outstanding nonprofit leader. Our class collectively agreed that the Southern Tier Alternative Therapies (STAT) is a well-organized nonprofit organization. Last class, a classmate delivered a heartfelt testimony of her experience with STAT. Within her testimony, she stated that Catherine Markosky’s (STAT president) salary is around $35,000. She proclaimed that Markosky’s managerial skills could equate to a lucrative salary as a manager in the for-profit sector. This statement is the reality that most MPA students have come to know very well.

While we have chosen this field of ‘greater good’, Thomas J. Tierny’s The Nonprofit Sector’s Leadership Deficit suggests that this is not enough. Nonprofit managers are in high demand and the supply is low. Tierny stated that the nonprofit sector should attempt to expand their recruitment pool. Is this suggestion practical? How can the nonprofit sector recruit the Catherine Markoskys of the world from the for-profit sector? Markosky and other social entrepreneurs tend to credit a ‘personal-calling’ that led them to serve as leaders in their nonprofit organizations. As MPA students, we have made a similar personal and professional choice to serve as leaders in public service. Most of us are aware that the public service sector is not lucrative. In general, many people who enter the profession are forced to live a humble life. Therefore, how can the nonprofit sector persuade a business senior executive to consider a life of public service?

Don't give to Major Charities

I recently watched an interesting video where James Altucher argued that people should not to donate money to major charities; this suggestion actually reflects the need-based criteria many of us used in our local NPO recommendations.

I like some of his argument because it makes people think about how to create greater local impact with their money, as apposed to smaller national impact.

Other aspects of his argument made me pause though. I thought about what he said on giving immediate help. That’s good, but if we only gave money for immediate relief, there would be less money for systemic relief – through advocacy, or policy and legal change.

I also thought his argument reinforced the negative connotation of administrative costs. Yes, there does seem to be some excess, but when people think about administrative costs they balance this out by thinking “I want my money to have charitable impact!” And the real needs for overhead funding are lost in the scuffle.

Does anyone else have any impressions they’d like to share?

You can read more of what James Altucher has to say here.

About how society gets relief through adaptation

In Chapter 6, "master the art of adaptation", Crutchfield mention an important feature about organizations: adaptation! This characteristic gains major importance for society whenever the adaptation is done by social entrepreneurs. In my concept, adaptation it is the key feature of nonprofits because they are the adapted response to changes in society. These changes can be gaps or needs that society is going through. In this sense, whenever nonprofits make an adaptation, it certainly relief and renew society. The example that I am bringing today is about and innovative invention made by an social entrepreneur. The device is known as "LifeStraw, a personal point-of-use mobile water-purification tool designed to turn any surface water into drinking water." This innovative response was made as an adaptation to social pressures to have a solution for the thousands of people without drinking water and the pressures of cost to install large equipment to purify water for the population.

Cutting Projects

In chapter 6 Crutchfield and Grant are mentioning that successful nonprofits focus on what “not to do”. This principle is about cutting programs as often as organization adding new projects; keeping the most effective projects, with big impact.

In 2009 we were working on the development of the new strategic plan for Armenian Caritas and our facilitator divided the stuff members into two groups: a group that would suggest new projects base on the mission and strength of the organization and a group that would cut projects in case of shortage of funding. I was in the first group and while we were working on our task I was constantly thinking which projects the second team would cut. Though it was just an exercise I was really worrying and analyzing which of my projects is weak and can be potentially cut in case of funding shortage. As a project manager I was sure that the community development projects would be in the “keeping” list as they made great impact in the rural communities and the results were quick and obvious: renovated buildings, furnished rooms, big number of volunteers involved percentage of community contribution and so on. I was very much worrying about the human rights and social justice projects which had a potential but did not have very big impact yet because these were projects with individuals to change their behavior, attitude and approaches to solve issues. This type of projects needs a lot of investment: resources, time, meetings, consultancies but has very little impact at the beginning. The results of this type of the projects will be observed later. I was thinking what if these projects will not have a chance to bring may be even bigger impact in future because of being in the list of the projects than should be cut.

As future non-profit sector leaders what shall we do in this case? Shall we make a list of criteria and cut those that simply do not meet all of the criteria? Or shall we try to give chance to develop and test new approaches that may not always result into immediate results or create bigger impact?

Do They Have To Abandon Their Features?

After reading my classmates' new blog post, I find the Master The Art of Adaptation is a hot topic for this week. On one hand it is based on this week's reading. On the other hand, every organization, not only non-profit organizations, need to adapt to changes. Administrators always have interests in talking about this.

In Forces for Good, the author mentions one point that "larger organizations become mired in bureaucracy or stuck in old ways of approaching social change that no longer work. They fail to recognize that the world is changing around them, and they are unable to modify their programs and tactics on the basis of signals received from the external environment or from key stakeholders". And one reason for adaption is "they must work outside the boundaries of their individual organizations to achieve greater impact."

In PI project, I add criteria: whether organizations could provide their goals, whether organizations could provide their long-term and short-term development plan, and whether organizations could adapt their short-term adapt to the social changes or other new trends. I think this is another way to evaluate their accountability in operation. But I still notice that, these kinds of evidences are difficult to find out. In other words, some changes are too small to be noticed.

In the same time, I have a new question: what can be changed and what cannot be changed, except their missions. Author also mentions that. Some organizations succeed for their special features. Personally, how do you think what can be changed or kept to "keep a balance"? Any examples?

Adaptation Important. No More MC Hammer Pants!

Crutchfield and Grant state "It's as much about what not to do as it is about which ideas to pursue. For every new program they add, they often cut something else that is having less impact" (p.148). I found this statement in the book the most compelling, because our class has talked all semester long about what organizations should be doing, and why they should be doing it, but has never discussed it from this angle. If organizations do not put a great deal of thought into what areas of their programs are not working, they will likely not adapt to their environment, because they will miss what clients really need. I think adaptation may be one of the most important practices discussed in this book thus far, because we are in an ever-changing world. In the 80's I wore MC Hammer pants, do you see me wearing MC Hammer pants now? No! They are ugly, out of style, and I am pretty sure I couldn't buy a pair now if I wanted to. Organizations cannot go around forever doing the same thing, just as I could not go on forever wearing MC Hammer pants. Just like styles change, people change and their needs change. When I was in high school I never had to take keyboarding, now my schools teaches it as part of its curriculum, because the computer is where almost the entire world does its work and employers are unlikely to hire someone who does not know how to type. If my school however, decided it will continue to teach handwriting only and not teach students keyboarding, they would graduate a lot of students who would have a hard time in college or finding jobs. I cannot think of a reason why organizations would not want to adapt. Is there anyone who was not sold on this idea, and will be in the small percent in class who clicks at the end of the spectrum? If so why?

The Art of Adaptation

In reading this week's chapter in Forces for Good and in assessing one of the local charities to which my group was assigned, I was able to see the congruence between Crutchfield and Grant's statements about adaptation and how a local organization has effectively mastered that art.

The Franziska Racker Centers provide programming for individuals with disabilities. In reading about their history, I found that they organization originally began as part of a Cerebral Palsy Association, serving children who were affected by that disability. Now, many years later, the organization has programs for individuals throughout the lifespan, including early-intervention programs for young children and social programs for older adults. Not only has the programming had to adapt to a changing environment, but the mindset and approach of the organization has as well. For example, one of the current trends in work with people with disabilities is that of "person-first" language, where one refers to the individual's human-ness before his/her disability. Although it may appear to be about semantics, ie. "the girl with blindness" instead of "blind girl," this language affects a changed mentality about individuals with disabilities and, consequently changes the approaches to serving those individuals.

I think the most difficult thing about mastering the art of adaptation is to really understand environmental changes and to champion a change that staff members and volunteers can really be on board with and commit to.

Assessing Organizations

As our group worked to assess the nonprofit organizations that were assigned to us for our group project, we spoke about something that I think is worth bringing up. One of my group members pointed out that it seemed odd to create criteria against which to assess two very different organizations, and then to assess them. The reason it felt "odd" to do so is because as donors, we wouldn't create criteria and then decide how any two organizations match up against those criteria. We would be more likely to first decide we want to donate to support a cause (e.g., clean water for everyone) and then look to see which organization(s) that supply clean water to those in need meet certain criteria. We wouldn't try to decide which organization is more deserving of a donation when one is an organization that supplies clean water, and one is an organization that provides housing for the homeless. That being said, I think that the group assignment was beneficial, because it taught us how difficult it is to assess organizations, especially when the organizations' missions are so different.

This post will generate exactly ____ responses because it is ____

Adaptation is a worthy conversation topic amid our society’s chaotic pulse. Innovation occurs all around us, challenging our notions and perspectives. To name a few, marketization, collaboration, Charity Navigator ratings manipulation, and social media communication. So what does drive this change, given that it suffuses the nonprofit sector, among all of society? Perhaps the need to remain solvent, subsist, advance, or self-preserve? Maybe. Recognizing that organizations exist in dynamic systems rather than vacuums, Crutchfield and McLeod Grant identify various internal and external factors encouraging responsive action.

This seems like common sense, as environmental factors are decidedly significant with the constant influx of new knowledge and means. For instance, “Forces for Good” was published in 2008, and compared to 2010’s “The Networked Nonprofit,” there is scant discussion of social media. We know that social media is a big deal today, compelling all organizations (for profit and nonprofit alike) to communicate with stakeholders and the broad public for a multitude of purposes through these avenues.

What did you think of when you first learned of Facebook? Did you think you’d discuss it in class, especially in such depth? Yet, there are signs of the next emergent paradigm, following on the heels of Twitter and Facebook, albeit to a more immersive degree. Those of us in PAFF 526 (Managing Information and Technology) saw an interesting Frontline documentary, entitled “Digital Nation” (http://video.pbs.org/video/1402987791), which scrutinized the rise of the digital revolution. The program featured immersive virtual reality platforms, including Second Life, which has rendered at least one IBM facility obsolete. Will such comprehensive telecommuting continue? From an administrative perspective, this may reduce (or eliminate) some facility and equipment expenditures which can then be redirected into programs.

Consider this NY Times article, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/12/science/12tier.html?_r=3&ref=science, concerning a possible next step in virtual interaction. Some individuals would consider this inevitable, others scary and highly controversial. Couple this with advancements in other fields, such as neuroscience, exemplified by the MacArthur Foundation’s current research project, the Law and Neuroscience Project (http://paff5522011.blogspot.com/2011/04/law-neuroscience-interesting-concept.html - Surprisingly, this post received no responses. This saddens me.).

These are a few of the many examples of how such advancement encourages systemic adaptation. Yes, these developments are just that – developments, which may gain broad implementation. Until then, nonprofits must continue to serve the public using the most current means available. As it is, do you think nonprofits’ use of Facebook and Twitter is at all profound? Do you think anything of this sort, the grandiose nature of social media and digital media, critically affecting communication which was once as extensive as postal exchanges? Are these merely tools? Tools which are stirring uprisings in the Middle-East unlike before, connecting everyone much like the information proffered by the internet itself, thus truly changing the world? What is your perspective?

Keeping Up With the Times

As is the case with any successful organization, business, etc., making sure the needs of the target consumers, clients, etc. are being met in a changing society is key and one of the most important factors in considering how much of an impact will be made. In the Forces for Good text this week the authors discussed the "cycle of adaptation". They highlighted some of the most important things needed in order to maintain a successful nonprofit. As they distinguished between the MBA perspective and the Free Spirits, it seemed that they were actually very similar and fulfilled the same phases, but in a different order. Many times when looking at a process such as this, we are handed something that says "start here" and "end here". I thought that it was very interesting to see a different approach used in this cycle. Just because one group of people start at the "evaluate and learn what works" phase does not mean that they will not be as successful as the group that starts at the "experiment and innovate" phase (and visa versa). The key to this way of thinking proves that different ways of thinking can lead to the same successful (or unsuccessful) result as long as balance is included.

About Innovation and Adaptation

In this week’s reading, “Force for good”, Chapter six, Crutchfield and Grant talked about the story of the nonprofit “Share Our Strength” to demonstrate the importance of a nonprofit’s ability to adapt. They pointed out that while it is important for a nonprofit to be able to continuously innovate, nonprofits shouldn’t abandon stifling system totally.
I think this theory is important for both start-up nonprofits that are determined to succeed, and big nonprofits that want to expand, but also for organizations that are set up to measure the effectiveness of other nonprofits, such as the Charity Navigator. A nonprofit’s ability to adapt to the environment can be a criteria to assess if the nonprofit is accountable or not.
However, I also got one question about this chapter. Of course for those big nonprofits that have already existed for a long time and can afford to lose some money to experiment, innovation and adaption are very necessary for them to stay competitive in this area. However, for those start-ups that have big fund issues, is it worthwhile to take the risk? Is it more practical for them to start doing something more traditional and less risk, accumulate their assets to a certain degree that a few exploration losses don’t hurt, and then to do some combination of innovation and adaptation? It’s always easy to say that we can make the decision by looking at the environment. What do you guys think?

Funders Driving Collaboration?

Completing the Yankey & Willen reading this week raised one key concern for me, that organizations would “collaborate” simply to obtain the funding available to those willing to do so. My concern is that partnerships that are not, at least partially, “organic” will have limited success. It reminds me of groups we are placed in for class; sometimes, I think I would gain a great deal more if I could chose my partners or perhaps work by myself. Last semester, I had the opportunity to work with Zhanna. It was the sort of “organic” partnership I was addressing above. I took a great deal more away from that project than I would have if I had been placed in a group chosen by a professor (not that I haven’t taken a great deal away from my other groups, particularly when I’ve worked with my wonderful partners/friends from this class!!!)

In PAFF 520, we read Collaborating Across Boundaries (Linden, 2010). The author stated that one of the most important attributes of a collaborative leader is bringing the right people to the table. I hope that the organizations that are applying for the funding addressed in the reading are able to use this approach, to honestly select partners that will help them advance their mission and have a social impact. These are key elements of success that are discussed in depth later in the reading but not in relation to funding as a driving force.

I don’t want to appear as though I do not support collaboration or the encouragement of collaboration by funders. What I hope is that the approach is building stronger organizations rather than artificial facades. Perhaps, I am looking too deeply into the reading. Was anyone else concerned by this aspect of the reading?

How important it is to LISTEN?

Interestingly, after reading chapter six for Forces For Good, I saw this word again. It is at least the third time in our textbooks (both from last and this semester) I read about the importance of listening.

In the book, Social Entrepreneurship: What Everyone Needs to Know, David and Susan define listening as a necessary quality for social entrepreneurs. “Entrepreneurs tend to be good listeners. They must be able to identify with others so they can understand their motivations and bring them together into effective teams.” (p.28) Social entrepreneurs need to listen to useful information, needs of beneficiaries, incentives of partners, etc.

The book The Networked Nonprofit also emphasized on listening. “The key ingredient for building any relationship is good listening. Rather than just talking to, or worse, at people online, organizations first should listen to what people are talking about, what interests or concerns them, and how they view the organization” (p.61). When starting to get involved in social media, organizations should start listening first to orient themselves online. It is also helpful for organizations to listen for the successful ideas and try to follow them.

Lastly, this week’s chapter rose the example of Share Our Strength as they “listen to chef’s interests and needs” (p.133). Furthermore, the authors said “adaption begins with listening for external cues in the environment and looking internally for opportunities to increase impact” (p.143). So listening is also a key element in the success of adaption. By listening and analyzing the interests of donors and needs of beneficiaries, NPOs can increase the chance of running successful adaption.

So, at least from the materials above, after start any campaign or program in nonprofit organizations, I personally will think about a question: “should we start by listening?”

Adaptation and a Changing Environment

In Chapter 6 of Forces for Good, Crutchfield and Grant discuss the success of organizations who are able to adapt to changing environments. The authors write that "many established, larger organizations become mired in bureaucracy or stuck in old ways of approaching social change that no longer work. They fail to recognize that the world is changing around them, and are unable to modify their programs and tactics on the basis of signals received from the external envirnment or from key stakeholders" (p.151). This is often true of organizations whose founders or original stakeholders are still active in the organization; it is often difficult to realize that the organization which you helped build from just an idea must change in order to remain viable.

I know that this need to adapt is something that Camp Good Days and Special Times, an organization with which I have worked/volunteered, has dealt with throughout its 31 years. When Camp Good Days was founded, it was only the 4th camp in the country for children dealing with cancer, and there were few other programs dedicated to these children. The demand for camping sessions grew rapidly, as parents realized that it was important for their children to be able to have fun as "regular" kids, outside of hospital environments. Eventually, programs for children dealing with cancer became much more widespread--there are now summer camps in almost every state and around the world. Camp Good Days began experiencing less demand and more competition.

Although Camp Good Days isn't a perfect organization by any means, leadership has been very successful at adapting to the changing times. In addition to summer and year-round programs for children dealing with cancer, there are now programs dedicated to siblings and children of those with cancer, children infected or affected by HIV/AIDS, children who are currently residing in foster homes, and children affected by domestic violence. There are also successful women's oncology programs, as well as a program dedicated to the spouses of those undergoing cancer treatment. Camp Good Days recently began a program for young adults (ages 18-39) after realizing that this group did not have the opportunities of other groups. The organization has realized that its original mission might not remain competitive in an environment with so many more opportunities, and it has grown and improved its programs in response. Of course, it has been difficult for some people who have been close to Camp Good Days for decades to accept the organizations evolution, but it is difficult to argue with the importance of adapting to a changing environment.

Do you have any experiences with organizations' adapting to changing environments? Or, have organizations you have worked with had trouble accepting that the must adapt/evolve?

Adaptation...much different from what we've heard before?

In Chapter 6 of Crutchfield and Grant (2010), it mentions the idea of adaptation. Basically, they explain that organizations that are able to perceive changes in the environment and develop new approaches in response is critical to continue to increase their impact (p. 131). To me, this is worded in just a slightly different way than what we have been reading/discussing about throughout the semester. We have touched on innovation (and innovation is brought up in this chapter I might add), becoming "networked", and working with the private sector.

Again to me, joining the networked community means an organization has adapted to the online environment. Instead of mailing post cards or newsletters, they are reaching out via Facebook or Twitter. Working with the private sector and using their strengths is a way to possibly better your services is something that forces the organization to adapt from their usual practices. These actions in fact prove that an organization is adapting to create impact. "In order to remain relevant, nonprofits must continue to adapt", per Crutchefield and Grant (p. 131). Yes, absolutely I say. But is this new news to us? Am I missing something from this chapter that hasn't really been mentioned before?

If anyone has different thoughts, or had the light bulb go off based on new information presented, please share! Maybe I read this chapter too fast, I don't know. I just don't want to be missing something.

Do nonprofits have to collaborate with other nonprofits in times of economic distress?

Chapter 14 of the Jossey-Bass handbook stated that the 2008 recession produced the ‘perfect storm’ “for nonprofit organizations—a reduction on available resources conjoined with an increased demand for services” (376). According to the authors John A. Yankey and Carol K. Willen, the 2008 recession most importantly forced nonprofit organizations to consider collaborative solutions as a necessity for its sustainability. Throughout the MPA program, we have been taught the importance of collaborating or reaching out to others to solve public management issues. If I had not analyzed the Cleveland Foundation in class two weeks ago, I would continue to support the notion that collaborating with outsiders is key to solving public management issues. However, the Cleveland Foundation exemplifies an alternate solution to solving management issues at times of economic distress.

Despite the economic recession in 2008, the Cleveland Foundation managed to attract the highest level of donations in its history. According to the annual report, the Cleveland Foundation prepared itself for a ‘rainy day’ with a well-diversified investment portfolio and carefully accumulated financial reserves. The report does not mention whether the foundation collaborated with another foundation to overcome the challenges the recession provided. Instead the foundation credits its success on their diversified revenue sources.

A nonprofit organization with a diverse/blended revenue source appears to be more effective and efficient than collaborating with other competitive nonprofit organizations. Last week’s readings did not alter my view on competition. While competition is important in sustaining the economy, when serving public good it can backfire. As prospective nonprofit managers, would you attempt to make your nonprofit’s revenue source diverse/blended or would you collaborate with outsiders to sustain your nonprofit?

How To Define "Network"

I made a mistake in my last post. I said in Charity Navigator project, we only evaluate the organizations by their 990 forms and websites without any opportunities for staff or us to write something or explain something. But, it is wrong. I find there is a Review tag on individual page.




I am working on an assignment for another class these days about nonprofit organizations' network, and its effectiveness and accountability. I notice that some of the important information is not posted on their website. In the interview, the details about the cooperation would help us draw a more comprehensive map of their network. I do not the comments on their individual pages will influence the scores they get. As a donor, sometimes, I only compare the final grades without looking at any comments. I am think whether the comments could add to the evaluation system, which could make the rating more exact.

We always talk about effectiveness and accountability. However, in most of cases, we'd better consider more on the atmospheres and contents of those organizations. Adding new criteria could help solving the problems and differences between organizations.

PS: I did not find how Charity Navigator chooses organizations, but three organizations where I may take my internship are all not included. Does anyone know how to add new organizations?
Because I know one of them is national organization, not local.

Collaboration and Strategic Alliances locally?

I have found Chapter 14 of the Jossey-Bass handbook supplied me with some surprising information. The authors, Yankey and Willin mention that since the 2008 economic recession, nonprofits (organizations registered as tax exempt with the IRS) has grown to over 1.5 million (p.375). What is amazing to me is that you would expect that the recession would decrease the nonprofits since funding to them is probably decreased considerably. However, these numbers say that their services are needed now more than ever.

The authors note that collaboration and strategic alliances form to increase capacity and services provided beyond what an individual organization can do by themselves (p. 377). This makes sense and it's nice to see that organizations that compete for constituents can come together and help the public when they're needed most.

My question regarding this is, does anyone know of local organizations that collaborate or form a strategic alliance? The only thing I can think of is during the flood of 2006 when many of the local nonprofits joined together to help members of the community out of thier flooded homes and into shelter. Although it was a huge success, it was temporary. I can't think of any other services that are provided as a joint force between local nonprofits. For those who are a little more involved, I'd be curious to see if this does happen in our area.

Innovation: How I Missed You

In the Crutchfield-Grant reading, the author distinguishes between two types of organizations in relation to their innovation/adaptation capacity. These two types were the "free spirits" and the "MBA's." Now considering we're are all pursuing a degree that is only one letter away from latter mentioned innovation/adaptation style, it would seem that we ARE being conditioned to accept a more structured or managerial way to foster or promote innovation. Indeed, our Charity Navigator Project and the multitude of articles that we have read in the past few weeks propagate the claim that innovative or adaptive strategies need to be measured, planned, and evaluated to be considered as "effective."

My concern with this MBA mentality is that it might stifle or discourage nonprofits from pursuing creative innovations or adaptations. Indeed, a theoretical means for measuring or planning might not exist for nonprofits who wish to pursue a 'true' innovation. I believe that a framework defining effectiveness is a necessity in today's society, but could such a framework also suppress an organization's willingness to innovate?

What do you guys think?

P.S. I have been attempting to read Ayn Rand recently, and might explain my post a bit.

So, Who's Using Charity Navigator?

I am curious to learn more about the users of Charity Navigator. What impact does Charity Navigator have on actual donations? If 80% of its users are not looking elsewhere for information, what percentage of that 80% are donors? Or is the other 20% that does look elsewhere the user population actually giving money? And what average amount of money are users of Charity Navigator giving? As an NPO administrator (or even as a potential donor to Charity Navigator) I would be interested in knowing what effect a rating site like Charity Navigator has on donations and users.

I looked around to see if Charity Navigator had any publicly available data on its users. The" 80%" fact cited above is the only information I've been able to learn, and it was part of a PowerPoint presentation to our class. I also wasn't able to find an Annual Report for Charity Navigator in under 5 minutes (or under 15). Is this kind of user information considered proprietary? I wondered why Charity Navigator wasn't publishing any reports on itself and, while searching, learned that Charity Navigator doesn't rate itself either* because it is currently a 501(c)(3) private foundation and files a 990-PF. If you can't rate Charity Navigator using the criteria it uses for the nonprofits it rates (especially the new "Results Reporting" criteria), does this affect your desire to donate money to them?

Ultimately, I feel that any organization like Charity Navigator, that is creating incentives for nonprofits to publish better reporting, is of value, not only to donors but to the NPOs themselves. I would like to know if my other classmates think that the lack of user reporting from Charity Navigator is meaningful in any way?


* They state that they cannot rate themselves because they are a private foundation, then in the second paragraph say that they are a federally recognized nonprofit organization. Am I missing something? I think they are in a transition stage, similar to a Provisional Charter for Museums in the State of NY? If this is so, why can't they start to rate themselves? If anyone has more or better information, please share!

How could local NPOs inspire evangelists?

The fourth chapter of Forces for Good discussed ways to inspire evangelists, the three examples it used are Habitat for Humanity International, Citi Year and Teach for America. These successful examples, however, have something in common. They are nationwide organizations who are trying to solve problems that most of people faced or will be faced. So during our discussion, we found it much harder for local NPOs to inspire evangelists. Firstly, the population is limited, which constrained the number of interested group. While tens of thousands of people in the USA might interested in the programs run by Habitat for Humanity International, what about a local museum in Binghamton? Will we be able to inspire the small population of people who interested in art and turn even fewer of them into evangelists? Moreover, based on our discussion last week, five states in the USA contributed half of the foundation assets. So it is plausible to think that there are states that people are more engaged in nonprofit activities, as well as those states that might not have so many people get involved in such activities, so how could local nonprofit in such state to inspire evangelists?

Two solutions I can think about are as following. First, link the nonprofit activities with something interesting. If it is hard for local nonprofits to carry out fundraising campaigns such as Charity: Water did, maybe they can attract local residents from doing things that are interesting and enjoyable to them, and then try to link it to their mission and “real intention”. Second, if it is hard to turn volunteers and donors to evangelists for local nonprofits since they already lack such resources, maybe they can seek ways to turn beneficiaries to evangelists. Beneficiaries can promote the organizations they benefit from by simply telling others, use online postings or provide useful feedbacks. Moreover, beneficiaries who are no longer need the help from the organization or are better off and well trained can probably do more voluntary jobs and help others.

An idea to complement Charity Navigator rating system

I think that Charity Navigator is a good tool to use when wanting to have information about the performance of the nonprofit. It provides a ranking based on financial information of the firm, as well as how the institution offers information related to its transparency through its website. However, if the system has a strong emphasis on nonprofits financial performance, it should include in its evaluation some ratios that reflect transparency and effectiveness based on financial information. In the NAF’s case, the firm would have increased its overall score gaining a better position in the qualification roster. We must not forget that these evaluation systems exert plenty influence on potential donors, so it is important to include as much information from the company so that potential donors may have a better idea of organizations’ performance. What do you think?

Woo Habitat

I was excited to look at Habitat for Humanity this week through the lens of someone studying non-profits, which is different in some ways than the viewpoint of a volunteer. I agree with what was written about the reasons that Habitat has become a high-impact organization and found what was written to have been the truth when I led a church trip to Paterson, New Jersey in 2010, where we worked with Habitat. In addition to their ability to change people's thinking about low-income housing, engage volunteers in a meaningful way, and use celebrity evangelists, there is one other element of Habitat that I think adds to their impact. I was suprised and happy to find that all of the staff builders that my group worked with during our trip were totally subscribed to the ideas behind the organization they worked for. Each one was proud to contribute his skills in a way that engaged volunteers, created a safer community, and provided housing to families in need. During the trip, staff members at varying levels of that chapter shared their stories with us and talked about what working for Habitat meant for them. While celebrity evangelists can have powerful leverage for organizations, I think staff evangelists can do just as much. This piece, coupled with each of the other elements discussed in Forces for Good, created an experience that informed and changed the thinking of many in my group, who were ages 14-50+.

Charity Navigator - Change of Heart

After completing the Charity Navigator assignment and ratings for my assigned organizations this week, I think it is important that I blog about my experience and thoughts. Initially, I disagreed with Charity Navigator about its additional rating methods in determining accountability and effectiveness. I thought that these additional ratings would mislead donors to think an organization was effective or ineffective because they relied solely on the information provided on a form-990 and website. However, I have had a change of heart. I cannot say that I particularly enjoyed rating my organizations, as the work was tedious, but I did learn that Charity Navigator has some good ideas. After completing my ratings, I found that the organization who rated the highest financially also rated the highest on transparency and accountability and result reporting. This may be a coincidence so it would be interesting to do learn if this happens in all cases, but I have a feeling that an organization who is effective in all rating areas is probably effective as an organization.

In my paper this week I defined effectiveness as the degree to which an organization positively affects its client, but noted that according to what we have learned in class, effectiveness can be defined in many ways. I have accepted that Charity Navigator does not determine effectiveness based on my definition, however I think it does move us in the right step forward. Organizations who are encouraged to be transparent and share results will want to have positive information to share in order to be funded by stakeholders. If organizations are rated based on what they are sharing and what they are not, I do believe they will be more inclined to be transparent. I think this will help improve what organizations are doing in their organizations, because in order to report something positive they have to be doing something positive. I also think that it is important that Charity Navigator linked financial efficiency, accountability and transparency, and results reporting together, because I think they impact a donors decision. I know that when I was rating my organizations, I found that I was more willing to donate to the one that rated high in all of these areas rather than the one who rated low.

Is there anyone else who thought Charity Navigator's new ratings were going to be ineffective but changed their mind? Also, did others find that their organizations' transparency and accountability and/or results reporting were higher if the financial efficiency ratings were higher and vice versa?