I was at a function a few days ago and someone was there promoting their organisation. It was a great organisation I must say, and at the end of the night, the person passed around a paper for us to fill in if we were interested to be kept up-to-date with all the cool stuff the organisation is doing.

After my first glance at the paper, my enthusiasm immediately died down by 20%. There were 5 columns – First Name, Last Name, Mobile, Address and Email Address.

I know that there used to be a perception that the more details you get from someone, the more you can keep that person in because you can easily hunt them down. However, those are red tapes that first put people off.

We’re moving towards a 140 characters world, where every character counts and if you don’t need those information, don’t ask for it. Looking through your database, do you see any information of your stakeholders that you’ve never used? Such as address – what do you do with them? Those extra information, although comes in handy when you need it, but the chances of you needing them is not worth wasting your computer’s space, administration managing the database and the person filling in all these information that you don’t need.

It’s easy to be sucked into thinking that the more, the better but in a world where resources are limited, you want to be efficient and straight to the point. Managing extra things that will give you limited outcomes is only a waste of time and resources. In a non-profit settings, you cannot afford to waste any of those. As far as thinking ahead goes, its about narrowing it down to the niche and efficiency.

That also applies to organisation managing social media. A lot of time, organisation jumps on the bandwagon because everyone’s on it, but if social media does not have the audience that will benefit your organisation its just another waste of resource.

no comments - Non-profit

Read more...

Philanthropy has never been an interesting topic to me, because I thought it was a little bit silly to make the art of giving technical. However, since being involved with a number of fundraising events, I have come to appreciate the importance of these organisations to help social investors make informed decision in supporting charities.

A few years ago, I got hold of a copy of the Good Giving Guide by Give Well. I was actually shocked at a number charities’ overhead ratios – which is basically the ratio or percentage of money used to cover the administrative and all other incurred costs. If you get a chance, I strongly recommend anyone whose interested in the area of non-profit to have a look, although bear in mind that overhead ratio does not tell you the meaningful work that the non-profit does.

Over the past few days, as the holiday season draws near, talk around giving also started to surfaced\ and being the geeky person that I am, I’m subscribed to a few blogs that’s been talking about it quite a bit. The ‘controversy’ lies around giving based on overhead ratio.

Tim Ogden over at Philanthropy Action raised a number of very important points and have been advocating for people to not give purely based on overhead ratio .

• It tells you nothing about the impact the charity has on people it’s trying to help
• The rules for determining overhead costs are vague and every charity interprets them differently
• Accounting experts estimate that 75% of charities calculate their overhead ratio incorrectly
• It discourages charities from investing in tools and expertise that would make them more effective

Allison Fine actually took a really strong stance on the issue, which criticised the organisations that introduced, advocated and promoted the use of overhead ratio to measure the efficiency of non-profit in the first place. Ken Berger in his blog also pointed out that beyond overhead ratio, we need to take into consideration the organisation’s:

1. Financial health – Is the nonprofit sustainable? Does it have robust financial strength to survive in good times and bad? Is the overhead not at the extreme end of the continuum?
2. Accountability – Does the organization have ethical practices, good governance and transparency? Is it accountable to its constituents?
3. Outcomes – Can the nonprofit supply information about meaningful and lasting change in the communities and lives of the people it serves? Can they show evidence that these changes are as a result of their efforts? Do they have systems and processes in place to effectively manage their performance?

I strongly agree with the three points that Ken raised. Having said that, I think this calls for organisations to actually take evaluations of their programs more seriously but more so, calls for more transparency and accountability. I know that this puts extra burden on organisations, but I think that in the long run, its a lot more beneficial for the organisation and the community. It allows the organisation to build trust, thus leading to satisfaction and engagement with its stakeholders – whether it be volunteers, staff or supporters.

The evaluation also allows the organisation take a reality check on its progress – the level of meaningful engagement its doing, the effectiveness and also it allows the organisation to understand its audience. This information is useful for the organisation to ensure its impact, but used wisely, it could also benefit in its fundraising effort. For example, understanding your audience can help you target the groups directly related to the audience that you are impacting on. Although your audience gains the most benefits from your service, often, its the groups that is directly related to you audience that sees the impact and ‘give back’ to your organisation.

Back to my opinion of giving, I’ve never considered overhead ratio as an influence on my giving. Afterall, I disagree with cutting down costs just because you’re non-profit. Thinking like a ‘non-profit’ will not do any organisation good (limited resources, unlimited work to do). The first step to thinking non-profit like a business/enterprise. Compelling equity is one of the keys to engaging your stakeholders and ensure dedication from them.

I often look at the work that the organisation is doing – the direct outcome, the accountability and sustainability of the organisation. It makes me feel good, and I think that is the number one factor that influence giving. But perhaps, this Christmas, as donors, we need to think more about our giving. It seems like we don’t matter but the way we give ultimately sets a culture that promotes accountability from non-profits.

I think Ken’s final paragraph would be a nice conclusion to this long post:

We believe like many others that this is a critical battle for the very soul of the nonprofit sector. We MUST get past the notion of doing the “good work” with no accountability. We MUST get past the idea that nonprofits are too complex or unique to be measured. I have seen it close up for years and it is not a pretty picture. The nonprofit sector must get its act together and make sure it is really helping provide meaningful change in communities and peoples lives. It is life or death for many of those we serve whether we are effective or not. So let’s work together to measure, manage and deliver what is really important to make our world a better place.

Do you care about an organisation / service’s performance before you give? Love to hear your thoughts.

2 comments

Read more...

I was having a conversation with a friend about online vs offline activism. She does not use Twitter and cannot see online activism happening. Her view is that offline campaigns are generally the most successful.

And I absolutely agree. But I think that having an online community does fuel the offline activity whatever it is. Technology and ‘being online’, if used correctly, is a powerful catalyst for any form of activism.

I am a big advocate of online community, although truth is in order to obtain highly engaged participants, most of the activities have to happen offline.

There are many engagement models out there but I love Priscilla‘s best because its simple and easy to understand.

According to her:

In my levels of engagement chart, a simple action involves befriending (e.g. MySpace), subscribing, forwarding and/or learning. An easy action involves blogging, signing petitions, protesting and/or wearing a badge/shirt/wristband. A specific action involves donating, volunteering, finding events to attend, downloading and using online materials offline and/or creating and uploading video/images. Once you become an active member, you are doing offline actions more than online actions.

I am not sure if I agree with protesting and volunteering being on the sympathiser end of the chart. I think they are more likely to be ‘active members’.

It is easy, although it takes a long time and strategies, to start an online community. Social media made it even easier for us to build our social network and pump out our cause; however, when it comes down to action, the personal relationship and real action still has to happen offline.

Technology provides the medium and is a catalyst for many activism.

You can organise an event on Facebook, invites people to come but what matters in the end is the number of people that turn up, not the number who said they are attending the event. In this case, Facebook provided the tool and catalyst to be able to invite more people than traditional medium can.

coconinoco

I don’t think that the involvement as sympathiser should be undermined, but every organisation would love to move their participants up to become activists. There is value in having a large number of sympathisers but when it come to impact, I think activists contribute more. Moving participants up the levels is the challenge. More on that next time.

I’m not sure if I understand online activism well enough but would love to hear your thoughts.

no comments

Read more...