One of a social advocate’s most critical acts is to frame an issue. In framing, a communicator uses language, metaphor, and other means to bring the community into the issue in a particular way.
So, for instance, tobacco control advocates reframed tobacco from a “personal vice” narrative, in which the public discourse centered around individual choice and behavior, to a “defective product” narrative, in which the role of corporate malfeasance and the need for protective regulations became clear.
Reframing an issue is hard work, as frames are socially shared and persist over time; but it is worth it, because public opinion and policy preferences are frame dependent. The stories nonprofit communicators tell have the power to make the public more or less supportive of positive changes — for instance, in the way we support human health and well-being, distribute society’s resources, and redress long-standing injustices.
Many nonprofit organizations are pretty good at tracking activity data, such as how many children they served, how many meals they served, or how many people completed a class or training offered.
Increasingly, these numbers alone are becoming insufficient to secure funding for programming efforts. Though “what we do” (outputs) certainly matters, many funders want to know the “why it matters” (outcomes) behind the programming they support.
Outputs measure what we do. Outcomes measure effectiveness and behaviors changed.
Outcomes can be notoriously difficult to measure. As nonprofit leaders, we spend almost all of our time delivering our programming. We deliver meals, work in the clinic, and build the homes. We naturally think in terms of outputs. Consciously thinking in outcomes requires that we slow down, assess our programing and its effectiveness, and implement tools to help better measure effectiveness.
Here’s why they matter. Outcomes help:
Tell your story more effectively
Demonstrate your value to funders
Get clarity around the organization’s purpose
Measure the effectiveness of your programming
Avoid unintended consequences
Recently, I worked with a food pantry on outcome measurements. Food pantries can be notoriously difficult to identify and measure outcomes. We identified that just over six percent of those using the pantry used it 10 times a year or more (a household can visit up to monthly), and under 20 percent used it five to nine times a month.
This meant that nearly 75 percent of patrons utilized the services of the pantry four times or less per year — when their car broke down, when a medical issue arose, or at another similar time.
With this data, we were also able to put systems in place to measure whether this would change over time, and whether it would change due to referrals or other activities of the pantry.
Ultimately, however, this pantry’s staff was able to explain to naysayers or potential funders that it was not “creating dependency,” but instead meeting a need in a way that moved people towards independence.
Oftentimes when I begin discussing outcomes with some nonprofit managers, I hear excuses about why they should not have to take the steps necessary to begin measuring outcomes. These excuses range from the cost, to being pulled away from programming, to believing that outcomes really are not important.
At the end of the day, these managers need to decide if they care enough about the people they serve and about their programming to do what it takes to make it better.
Attorney Zac Kester provides generalist and strategic nonprofit legal and consulting services. He holds a Master of Laws, a post-law school advanced degree, in which he studied the unique needs of tax-exempt nonprofit organizations. His legal and consulting career has focused on nonprofit organizations.
With highly experienced legal, accounting and training personnel, Charitable Allies provides all manner of legal and educational services for boards, officers, management and staff of myriad charities throughout the sector. From basic one-time questions about a single matter to training for boards and officers to complex reorganization or merger of activities, Charitable Allies is your go-to cost-effective provider of legal services to nonprofit organizations.
Looking for a foundation directory that is Indiana centric? After an eight-year hiatus, the Indiana Philanthropy Alliance is reviving its publication to accomplish just that.
The new directory, available in March, will narrow its focus. Now, as an online publication, it will be limited to foundations based in Indiana that give to in-state nonprofits. In that past, the directory included some regional and national foundations that gave in Indiana.
With over a 1,000 foundation entries, each must have granted at least $25,000 in awards in the past year.
“There definitely are some new foundations that weren’t in there in 2008,” said Sarah Geis, director knowledge management at Indiana Philanthropy Alliance. “Being online it’s a quick and easy way to filter, and then the user can print out the ones that look like a match for their organization’s needs.”
The online publication allows the user to filter in multiple ways. The subscriber can search by terms or interest areas. Once the search is completed, the user has a list foundation matches. Then an individual funder can be selected for a more detailed entry.
Each entry includes information about a foundation’s proposal method, application procedure, geographic preferences, contacts, financials, grant deadlines, interest areas and support type.
“Grantmakers are glad that we are resurrecting the publication, and their grantees are looking forward to having access to again,” said Marissa Manlove, president and CEO of Indiana Philanthropy Alliance.
Geis said there will not be a printed version and the directory does not include past grants or list current grant opportunities. Since there are other sources available, the new edition will not include a scholarship section.
“Hopefully, it will be evergreen. We will be putting together a protocol for when we’ll be periodically going in, evaluating and reviewing the information,” said Manlove. “We have a learning curve and we may find some things that we may need to adjust in proving usability.”
With Manlove’s contact with grantmakers in Indiana, nonprofits often ask her for advice on approaching funders. Here are some of her suggestions.
“Certainly the recession created some challenges for foundations, and for a period of time, there was definitely a pulling back of the assets that were available, in order to do grant making. Everybody’s investment portfolios took a hit.
That’s built back up again to mostly pre-recession levels in terms of assets.
There definitely were some foundations that made some changes to the way that they were doing their grantmaking, limiting any multi-year commitments because they really weren’t in a position to do as much longer-term looking out. Some decided to pull back on certain types of grants, limiting capitol grants or grants from new grantees.
The recession sparked some of the changes, but it wasn’t the only reason why: I think grantmakers began to think a little bit more strategically, more targeted in their grantmaking approaches, how they might more effectively partner or learn about what other sectors, government sectors , the private business sector are they doing. Asking: Are there opportunities for ways to leverage what each other’s doing? You hear more these days about public private partnerships.
Not that those things weren’t happening back in 2008, but I think you’re probably hearing about it now.
What I tell (nonprofits who contact me about grantmaking) is it’s worth your while doing research. There’s some upfront time.
As you well know, nonprofits are lean on their staffing and having the time and luxury to doing that kind of research can be a challenge. But it’s worth it to spend some time researching.
The worst thing that a nonprofit can do is start sending out blanket proposals to foundations without knowing whether or not it’s a fit or not. It is unfortunately a waste of everybody’s time and can have the unintended consequence of putting a bad taste in program officers’ mouths. “This organization isn’t even taking enough time to know, they’re sending us this request for xyz, and we clearly say on our website what we fund and this is it.’
Kathy Souchet-Downey is big on making lists. Lists that nonprofits can use.
As a staff member of Congressman André Carson in Indianapolis, she regularly pulls together a list of recently released federal grants and emails it to organizations. All an organization has to do to receive it is email her at kathy.downey@mail.house.gov and request the publication.
But the grants’ list isn’t the only way Carson’s office supports applicants. He is willing to provide his support by writing a letter to accompany the nonprofit’s grant request. Souchet-Downey can also help field specific grant questions. With the Congressman’s support, over $7 million in federal grant money was secured for nonprofit and community organizations in his district last year.
Kathy Hahn Keiner at Gleaners Food Bank of Indiana, Laura Feldman Miskin at College Mentors for Kids and Gregg Keesling at RecycleForce have first-hand experience applying for federal grants that had Carson’s and other Indiana Congress members’ support.
Since 2009, College Mentors for Kids has applied for five federal grants. In 2013, it was awarded a three-year $1.3 million grant for its work in five states. Feldman Miskin said the application itself created several opportunities.
“Most of my work my work at College Mentors for Kids is with corporations and foundations supporters, but this is a different ballgame,” said the director of corporate and foundation development.
“It created an opportunity to talk with our career staff about ways to improve the programs significantly, where programs could grow and for the staff to think about how the federal government could support this effort. It brought innovations to a new level,” she said.
Carson’s office also provided guidance on building relationships with members of Congress in the other states where College Mentors work.
These three local organizations haven’t applied for the same dollars, but rather from a variety of federal agencies.
For College Mentors the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009 provided its first funding, and later grants from the U.S. Department of Justice, specifically the Office of Juvenile Justice (OJJDP) was a fit. The organization has applied for five federal grants. OJJDP has identified mentoring as a strategy for preventing and intervening in juvenile delinquencies, and so it aligned with the organization’s mission.
Keesling, RecycleForce’s executive director, said his agency’s grants come from two federal agencies – the Department of Labor and Department of Health & Human Services’ subdivision, Community Economic Development (CED) Grant Fund. Since 2009, Keesling said RecycleForce has been awarded over $11 million in federal grants, including $2.1 million in the last six months, which is helping the organization add 40 jobs.
[content_box box_type=”normal”]
Grants: There are three common types of federal grants: formula, project and matching.
Formula grants are non-competitive and are distributed to state and local governments based on quantifiable variables. For example, X dollars goes to every student in the state. These grants are allocated for broad purposes such as highway programs, education funding and block grants. Please note that although formula grants are initially non-competitive, once funding is received by a federal agency or state and local government, these dollars may be available to eligible organizations through an application or request process.
Project grants fund specific projects and services addressing a specific policy need identified by Congress. Availability of this funding fluctuates year-to-year. Project grants are most often competitive and available to eligible organizations through an application or request process. Examples of project grants include Wetland Protection grants through the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency or Minority Business Development programs through the U.S. Small Business Administration.
Matching grants require that the recipient contribute something towards the project — normally cash services or facilities to match a percentage of the grant. These are used to encourage recipient to efficiently manage the program. Matching grants are most often competitive and available to eligible organizations through an application or request process.
[/content_box]
Writing these proposals, however, is not for the faint of heart. All three said the timeframe is condensed, giving them six weeks to two months from first learning about the grant to the final submission. All three recommended a dedicated internal staff person that keeps everyone on task.
And not all their asks have been successful. Keesling said RecycleForce applied four times before it got its first CED grant.
“You’ve got to understand the rules at the federal level, and then you’ve also got to understand how you adapted those rules to your needs at the local level,” said Keesling.
The system allows the organization to learn, if the grant is not approved.
“People historically chase the money, they fail, they get frustrated, they throw up their hands. It’s a process,” he said. “When you don’t get a grant, you can request feedback from the reviewers about what you did wrong.
Feldman Miskin and Keesling said it is important that this is not the first time your member of Congress has heard from you and that you have established relationships.
“Hey, you never heard of me, but will you write a letter of support? Here’s all the good work we are doing.”
While there is a learning curve to develop strong proposals, using the government’s online grant system also takes time to learn.
Hahn Keiner, Gleaners’ Chief Programs and Agency Relations Officer, was introduced to the federal grant application process this fall. With the closing of the Double 8 stores, Congressman Carson hosted a food insecurity roundtable that Hahn Keiner attended and piqued Gleaner’s proposal idea.
In April, Gleaners will learn if its proposal for a $100,000 Fresh Bucks Indy project will be funded. The pilot-project is modeled on the SNAP incentive program, which is used at Indianapolis area Farmers’ Markets and allows a user’s benefits go further by doubling purchasing power, up to $20, on Indiana-grown specialty crops.
If awarded, Gleaners will partner with Kroger at the 10th and Linwood streets’ store. That particular Kroger has a high SNAP usage. The project would not only expand the SNAP participants access to produce year-round, but partner with a national retail store.
“We are hoping to get the grant because we think it’s a viable project that could be replicated all over the country. We’re really excited about it. There is a lot of opportunity even if we don’t get it. The whole idea was it was successful at the Farmers’ Market, but test driving it at Kroger, and it could go farther than that, if it is successful,” said Hahn Keiner.
According to Keesling, Indiana is at the end of the line when it comes to federal grants.
“We don’t have a culture that understands how to do it. With the work of Congressman Carson’s office, we are starting to grow that. These are our tax dollars, and there is really no reason that they should go to New York or Oklahoma. We should think of the federal government as a partner.”
The three had some general advice for nonprofits that are considering a federal grant submission:
Spend time on the specific federal agency’s website, issuing the request, to understand how it thinks about the world, the language used and how it identifies a problem. That will help determine, if your nonprofit is a good fit, and the project aligns with the organization’s mission and local community goals.
Ask area nonprofits that have received federal grants for tips.
Get comfortable with the government’s structured online grant application system (grant.gov). Carson’s office has a primer on learning to use the online application system.
Identify an internal project manager to help meet the deadline and create a timetable to complete.
Letters of support from members of Congress are a unique aspect of the process, so allow plenty of time to receive the required collaboration and support letters. The more support, the better it speaks to the project.
Get started early on grant elements that will require materials from external sources, like project’s contractor bids and partner memorandums.
Spend time on the budget. Ask: Is it allowable? Expendable? Reasonable? Does it support program objectives?
Allot time to work on it in order to cross every “T” and dot every “I”. Keep your writing clear and clean. It’s not a time for creative writing.
After you receive the grant, keep members of Congress updated. Form collaborative partner committees.
By Diane Freda, reporter, Daily Tax Report Bloomberg BNA |
Jan. 7 — The IRS has withdrawn proposed rules that would have allowed charities to directly report donors’ contributions to the agency, saying it won’t implement an exception to the current “contemporaneous written acknowledgement” (CWA) requirement for substantiating contributions of $250 or more.
The Internal Revenue Service had been flooded with comment letters opposing the proposal released in September (180 DTR G-7, 9/17/15).
In withdrawing the rules (REG-138344-13) Jan. 7, the IRS cited the substantial number of public comments it has received questioning the need for donee reporting, and especially, the collection and maintenance of Social Security numbers for use on a new information return.
By Anna Cielinski,Senior Policy Analyst, Center for Postsecondary and Economic Success |
As the New Year begins, states have an opportunity to set policies that will improve employment and training services for low-income adults through their Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) State Plans. These plans are due to the Departments of Labor and Education on March 3, 2016.
According to the updated Information Collection Request (ICR) regarding WIOA State Unified and Combined Plans, state plans must describe strategies to prioritize employment and training services for “public assistance recipients, other low-income individuals, or individuals who are basic skills deficient.” CLASP applauds this clear call for robust implementation of the priority of service provision for high-need adults. This strengthened policy, for which CLASP has advocated, will help ensure that states serve low-income people.
By John D. Macomber, senior lecturer Harvard Business School, HBR |
Today’s mega-cities have a footprint problem. They are developing horizontally, not vertically, with vast areas of low sprawl reaching out for miles from Sao Paolo, Lagos, New Delhi, Guangzhou, Jakarta, and many others. A central question our civilization must address is how we can avoid becoming a planet of informal slums.
Every year, hundreds of millions of people across the globe move from rural to urban environments in search of opportunity. In a perfect world, governments would have the cash and the consensus to fund and coordinate the construction of the infrastructure required to sustainably accommodate a rapidly urbanizing world. But few governments appear to have the money or the political will to foot the up-front costs to prevent or fight fragmentation.
Recently, Tomer Barel, the chief risk officer at PayPal, share his five fraud predictions for 2016 with CNBC and talked about the evolving interplay of technology and fraud. Here are the highlights.
Social networks will help fraudsters get more sophisticated.
Major social networksare becoming more searchable, allowing fraudsters to learn more about their intended targets. This will lead to more successful social engineering attacks as targets will be led to believe they’re interacting with legitimate entities with whom they have an established relationship. Even the strongest network security is only as strong as its weakest link — which often is the employee. Now may be a good time to remind employees of these tips:
Do not provide data (confidential or not) and credentials via email, chat messenger or phone or in face-to-face conversations with unknown or suspicious persons or entities.
Avoid clicking on that link to an unknown site in an email. Take a closer look at the URL and the sender’s email address. They may be similar to but not exactly what you anticipate. Check for misspellings, @ signs and subdomains.
Beware of “baiting,” when an attacker tempts the user with a free or found USB or thumb drive, hoping someone will pick it up and plug it into their computer. Once you do, you’re hacked.
Shauna Woody-Coussenshas more than 20 years of experience providing dispute analysis, forensic investigations and valuation services to the business and legal communities. Her dispute analysis experience includes litigation consulting, trial, deposition and arbitration testimony and prelitigation financial analysis.
NFF’s 2015 State of the Nonprofit Sector Survey focuses on the underlying causes of these dynamics by exploring the programmatic, financial, and operational issues facing nonprofits across the U.S. It launched the Survey in 2008, when economic crisis threatened the viability of many organizations.
Seven years later, results from 5,451 respondents show some indications of recovery, stabilization, and growth. Nonprofits are adding jobs, engaging in strategic conversations such as leadership succession planning, and looking to retain their workforce. Yet as they raise their sights from the focus on short-term crisis, many are confronting the troubling reality that current practices cannot sustain organizations in the long-term or meet the needs of the communities they serve now. Many organizations have stumbled out of crisis looking to make the necessary investments to secure their long-term future. And it is a hard road ahead.
Key findings
Under-resourced communities are going without because nonprofits can’t meet demand. Americans — particularly those in low-income communities — are still struggling to secure jobs, affordable housing, and healthcare.
76 percent of nonprofits reported an increase in demand for services — the 7th year that a majority have reported increases.
52 percent couldn’t meet demand — the third year in a row that more than half of nonprofits couldn’t meet demand.
Of those who reported that they could not meet demand, 71 percent said that client needs go unmet when they can’t provide services.
The 2015 NFF Survey Analyzer at survey.nff.org allows you to investigate questions that cut across sub-sectors, budget size, geography and other dimensions.
By Bruce DeBoskey, The DeBoskey Group, for The Denver Post |
With record levels of giving, new approaches to marshaling philanthropic assets for impact, and better approaches to philanthropic strategy, 2015 was a great year for philanthropy. This trend will continue in 2016.
Increasingly, leaders in businesses, foundations and families understand that philanthropy is more than the merely transactional act of writing checks to favorite nonprofits. Today, philanthropy is seen as a strategic investment that is transformational for both society and the donor.
In the coming year, expect to see: The increasing impact of women
Women continue to demonstrate innovation and leadership in the field of philanthropy — and with big impact. Women now control more than half of the private wealth in the United States.
Looking forward, women are expected to inherit 70 percent of the $41 trillion in inter-generational wealth transfer that will take place over the next 40 years. By 2025, women will comprise 60 percent of U.S. billionaires.
