by Susan Detwiler | Feb 2, 2020 | collaboration, nonprofit
Anchor institution? Small and scrappy arts organization? Can working together vitalize both?
“Anchor institutions†are the major, long-standing nonprofit organizations. Hospitals, universities, United Way, community foundations. They work hard to be engines of growth for their communities, often buying from local and/or minority and/or women-owned businesses, re-purposing old buildings, employing more local individuals. Economic drivers.
But what about the arts?
This article from Non-Profit Quarterly shows that anchor institutions frequently ignore cultural-, social-, and community-based methods of building up the community. Meanwhile, arts and cultural institutions such as museums, artist groups and specialty theater groups, have been using non-economic methods for years.
Cultural institutions – especially smaller, younger ones — also struggle to revitalize their communities while avoiding gentrification.
In the words of the author, “with an explicit equity focus, this result can be avoided.â€Â Anchor institutions and cultural institutions can learn from each other.
Regardless of which kind of nonprofit you are – a large, anchor institution or a cultural institution – if one of your strategic goals is to build a stronger, vital community, this article has food for thought.
If a you want to have a board session to assess your role in revitalization – or any other aspect of planning — please let me know. I’m happy to talk.
Watch for more posts about important articles. If you see an article you think everyone should read, please send it on. Or if you want to talk about facilitation, governance or planning for your organization, I’d love to have that conversation.
More eyes – more articles – more wisdom!
-Susan Detwiler
by Susan Detwiler | Jan 5, 2020 | governance, mission, work
I love Erin Rubin‘s article in Nonprofit Quarterly: Libraries, in a Move for Equity, Scrap Late Fees.
First, because I have an affinity for libraries and I love watching them evolve with the times.
Second, because it has an important message for every nonprofit:
Are you living your mission?
“At their midwinter meeting in 2019, the American Library Association issued a resolution stating the imposition of monetary library fines creates a barrier to the provision of library and information services,†and recommended that libraries “move towards actively eliminating them.
Late fees are antithetical to the mission of a public library. Late fees are a barrier to providing free and open access for all patrons, especially to low-income individuals.
It’s an interesting innovation for libraries with a profound message for all nonprofits.
When was the last time you looked at your processes and procedures to see if they fit with your mission? What are you doing as ‘business as usual,’ that is actually at odds with the impact you want to have?
You can use this example from libraries across the United States to introduce the idea to your board and staff. What are WE doing out of habit or received wisdom ™ that we should eliminate or change?
If this article has provoked some thought, please let me know. If you bring it up to your staff or board, I’d love to hear how it’s received.
And if another article has caught your eye and made you think, pass it on.
More eyes, more wisdom.
Susan Detwiler
by Susan Detwiler | Dec 16, 2019 | innovation, nonprofit
I don’t know how to use the information in this Stanford Social Innovation Review (SSIR) article. But it’s intriguing enough that I wanted to bring it to YOUR attention.
Local Government Artist-in-Residence Programs Must Include Opportunities for Public Sector Innovation.
The premise is that having artists at the table enhances the work of civil servants, policy makers and public sector employees. Policies and programs can be more innovative by having creatives participate in developing them.
The authors suggest that governments move the “artist-in-residence†concept away from the narrow field of a particular medium. Instead, have them use their creativity to develop new ways of looking at ideas and projects.
The rapid change of society requires creative responses.
As I read the article, I started thinking about how this could be applied to nonprofits of all kinds. Can bringing artists onto the board bring another level of creativity to planning? And even though many arts and cultural institutions are founded by creative people, they may stray too far from the origins and remove all artists from the board. And the rapid change of society needs creative responses.
This is an article worth reading and musing about. I hope you agree.
Susan Detwiler
by Susan Detwiler | Sep 11, 2019 | fundraising, governance, nonprofit, sustainability
WHY IT’S IMPORTANT: Five CEOs of Wealthy Foundations Pledge to Do More to Help Charities Pay Overhead
This article in The Chronicle of Philanthropy is a long read, but hugely important to every nonprofit organization that relies on grant funding for at least part of its revenue.
It’s notable when five of the wealthiest foundations revisit their granting processes and decide that they’ve been underfunding the support (they call it ‘overhead’) that makes it possible for nonprofits to deliver their missions. It prompted them to examine different ways they might change their granting structures to allow more flexibility in the operations and investments in infrastructure of their grantees.
No Reserves!
The foundations are: Open Society Foundations, John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, Â Ford Foundation, William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and David & Lucile Packard Foundation. After engaging Bridgespan to research the effects of their giving on a subset of their grantees, they learned that 42% of the nonprofits had less than 3-months of operating revenue on hand. While the foundations have agreed that their funding processes need to change, each will make their own adjustments based on their own priorities, and as they experiment with their own grantees.
As my colleague Justin Pollock, has pointed out, restricted funding is not inherently a problem if it actually covers the true costs of a program. But when a nonprofit ACCEPTS restricted funding that only covers PART of a program’s costs, by default they are saying ‘we will restrict our own dollars’ to go towards completing the program’s budget.
These efforts by major foundations to look at their own practices are a welcome sign that change may come.
It may mean more unrestricted funding or it may mean restricted funding that truly covers costs. But it will take time for any change to spread. Wherever you are located, don’t expect immediate change. I doubt that any local foundation landscape will change rapidly. While smaller organizations can often be more nimble than larger ones, larger foundations have the staff and funds to research new methods and their implications. On the other hand, you may find that a handful of your local foundations may read about this research and be energized to make their own changes.
Definitely something to watch. And you may want to forward this article to your friendly funders, as well.
This series of “Why it’s Important†is meant to keep you abreast of news, research and articles that provoke thought about how we govern and manage nonprofits.
 If this article has started some conversations, or even caused some deep thinking about funding, please let me know.
And watch for more curated articles. If you see an article you think everyone should read, please send it on. Or if you want to talk about facilitation or planning for your organization, I’d love to have that conversation.
More eyes – more articles – more wisdom!
– Susan Detwiler
by Susan Detwiler | Jun 25, 2019 | inclusion, nonprofit
Why is this article important? Â It has some interesting points to make about the difference between tokenism and really embracing diversity on a board.
The majority of people on nonprofit boards, acknowledge that board diversity is important. But even as research shows the intention to improve board diversity, the 2017 report, Leading with Intent, shows that “boards are no more diverse than they were two years ago.â€* Meanwhile, as boards continue to talk about diversifying, the definition of what constitutes diversity has evolved.
From tokenism to inclusion
Society has moved from tokenism to ensuring that people of diverse age, gender, ethnicity, orientation and background not only fill important roles with their skills and talents, but are also valued for the diversity that they bring.
The perspective of this article from Harvard Business Review, When and Why Diversity Improves Your Board’s Performance,  is that of a for-profit corporation. But there are valuable lessons for nonprofit boards that want to both encourage diversity and take advantage of that diversity. To quote the authors:
“Diversity doesn’t matter as much on boards where members’ perspectives are not regularly elicited or valued. To make diverse boards more effective, boards need to have a more egalitarian culture — one that elevates different voices, integrates contrasting insights, and welcomes conversations about diversity.â€
What might that mean for your Governance or Nominating Committee? More pointedly, what might that mean for how your board approaches ambitious or controversial decisions? How might having different voices around the table change not only the decisions that you make, but how you make those decisions?
If this article has started some conversations, or even caused some deep thinking about governance and recruitment, please let me know.
And watch for more curated articles. If you see an article you think everyone should read, please send it on. Or if you want to talk about facilitation, governance or planning for your organization, I’d love to have that conversation.
More eyes – more articles – more wisdom!
– Susan Detwiler
*Leading With Intent 2017 National Index of Nonprofit Board Practices.
Recent Comments