One Post Challenge | Tactical Philanthropy

Category Archives: One Post Challenge

One Post Challenge Runner Up

December 11, 2007 – 1:40 pm

I sent FORGE their prize money today. Congratulations once again to them and “a fundraiser”, the author of the winning post of the One Post Challenge. We also have a runner up. Thanks to a $250 prize offer by charity gift card company TisBest, I get to award a prize to the post that I thought was the best example of what I was trying to accomplish with the One Post Challenge.

Drum roll please…

And the runner up prize goes to Trista Harris for her post An Evacuation of the Ivory Towers. I think this is an excellent argument for something new and different in philanthropy and the post spurred a 17 comment conversation with Trista actively responding to her readers. You can read find the original post here with attached comments and I’m republishing the post below.

An Evacuation of the Ivory Towers

Today One Post Challenge entry comes from Trista Harris, a Program Officer and the voice behind www.newvoicesofphilanthropy.org, a blog about next generation philanthropy issues.

By Trista Harris

Today I am proposing nothing short of a revolution in the philanthropic field. What if foundations were connected to the communities that they were serving; innovation and creativity were encouraged; knowledge was shared within organizations and with the larger philanthropic and nonprofit sectors; and foundations were measured on the results of their investments, not just amount of money spent or number of staff? I know you are probably asking yourselves right now, “what kind of crazy alternative universe are you living in Trista Harris?”

I should probably back up. Any time you are proposing a revolution, it’s important to give proper background or else you scare people off. The philanthropic landscape is changing. Baby Boomers are beginning to retire or re-imagine their positions. Donors are more actively engaged and want measurable results, and the government is spending a lot of time and energy trying to reign in the philanthropic sector. Professional philanthropic staff are trying to figure out how to do more with less time. How do we re-invigorate our troops of professional do-gooders to make sure that are connected to the communities that they serve and have the capacity to move the philanthropic sector from potential to results?

As a life long staff member of nonprofits, I always cringe when someone, usually a board member, says “if you just applied business principals to your work, all your problems would be solved.” But, I think I have found an idea from the for-profit sector that could solve a variety of our sector’s ills. Flexible work schedules and telecommuting have become commonplace in many for-profit organizations, but a Minnesota company has taken flexibility to the next level with the results-only work environment. Best Buy, an electronics retailer, has given its employees full control of how, when, and where they work. A guiding premise is that “work is something you do, not somewhere you go.” This means that employees take conference calls while fishing and start project planning after their kids go to bed. This new model has decreased turnover but, more important to our conversation, has improved productivity by 35%.

What if Program Officers suddenly became office-less? What if we spent our time in the communities that we serve, rather than in a stuffy conference room talking about the community? Would this change force us to create knowledge management systems to connect this out-based workforce? Would that system then institutionalize the wisdom that is currently only available inside of an “about to retire” program officer’s head? How much more effective could our work be? Flexibility breeds innovation and it encourages collaboration outside of the “usual suspects.” The people that probably have the best insight about the need for a new community center are the moms and dads that are at a nearby playground during the day. That’s not who most Program Officers are rubbing shoulders with at 11am.

When people are measured by what they accomplish, not how much time they are at their desks, the rules change. Suddenly the star employee isn’t the one who arrives at 6am and leaves at 6pm, it is the one who is most knowledgeable about community solutions and has the most positive effect on their program area. How different would the sector be if we were all working at full capacity and still had time to be a good parent and an engaged community member?

I am proposing a revolution. So let me know, are you in or are you out?

Tweet This Post

By Sean Stannard-Stockton | Also posted in Foundations, Grantmaking, New Philanthropy, Philanthropy | Comments (3)

Kjerstin Erickson of FORGE

December 5, 2007 – 11:41 am

Who is FORGE, the nonprofit that posted 423 comments to the One Post Challenge winning entry? Well here’s the story as written by FORGE founder and executive director Kjerstin Erickson.

By Kjerstin Erickson

One week ago Monday, I stumbled across the One Post Challenge after following a few links from the ‘Philanthropy Today’ update that I receive in my inbox every weekday. As a blogger myself, I first considered entering. But then I came across the $500 for your nonprofit entry and immediately knew that with the right mobilization strategies, FORGE would win.

FORGE is not a huge organization, but we have three things working in our favor:

a) an engaged and highly motivated network

b) a strong presence in today’s online social networking tools

c) a staff that understands the power of social media and is willing to use it

The beauty of web activism is that you don’t even have to know the people that you reach – they are often 3 or 4 degrees of separation away from you. I know everyone that has ever worked or volunteered for FORGE, but I only knew approximately 15% of the people that voted for us.

So what did we do? Every nonprofit keeps a master listserv of their supporters, but we didn’t even have to use ours. Rather, we depended on the personal connections of our core staff and alumni – approximately 50 people – who we then asked to reach out to others. Being requested to do something – anything – is much more potent when it comes from someone you know well. Therefore, dozens of smaller emails are often much more powerful than a few large email blasts.

Sending the request to our core staff was our original, ‘catch-up’ strategy. But we asked people to not reach deeper into their networks until the deadline was upon us. When there was just 12 hours left in the competition, we pounced.

Facebook is our networks’ social networking tool of choice, so we:

1) formed a Facebook Event and invited thousands of people to “virtually attend” (the event was named “FORGE go go WIN!” after comment #200, our favorite, from one of the refugee students we sponsor to University)

2) asked our staff members to “Post a Facebook Note” telling everyone in their network about the contest and how they could take part

3) asked our staff members to “change their Facebook status” to “Just Voted for FORGE at http://tacticalphilanthropy.com/2007/11/500-for-your-nonprofit”

Within 3 hours, we had 100 new votes. By the end of the evening, we had more than 260 new votes. And the rest is history…

Do I have any lessons to share? I think that the majority of the nonprofit world is blissfully unaware of the revolution that is happening in cyberspace. Many organizations have little idea what Facebook is, much less how great of a tool it can be for them if used properly. Web 2.0 has brought with it a great transformation of the possibilities for human outreach and interaction, and the social sphere is one of the best places to use it.

Everyone loves a little competition, and this contest was extremely fun for us. But perhaps the best part of it was not the winning or even the funds, but the way in which our ‘constituents’ – the refugees that FORGE serves – got involved from across the world. Most of the refugees we work with live in camps that don’t have electricity, much less internet access. However, we are currently sponsoring six talented refugee students to attend university in Lusaka, and they have internet access at the ‘flat’ where they live. The day I found the post, I decided to send them a quick email to let them know about the competition. The next morning, I woke to find that not only had they all posted a comment of support, but that they had gotten so excited about the contest that they went all over their apartment building, knocking on doors, and getting people to come over to vote for FORGE! When you are an African refugee, you have little opportunity to break down the barrier between ‘server’ and servee’ and fundraise for yourself – they took the opportunity with gusto.

And boy we’re they excited when FORGE won…you’ve just gotta check out the video and attached photos they sent!

Kjerstin Erickson

FORGE Founder and Executive Director

www.FORGEnow.org

Tweet This Post

By Sean Stannard-Stockton | Also posted in Philanthropy, Social Media, nptech | Comments (4)

Philanthropy Reading

December 4, 2007 – 5:02 pm

Google Analytics lets me see a lot about how people interact with Tactical Philanthropy. The number of comments and emails I get is one form of feedback. So is data like the most read posts, the posts that people spent the most time reading, and a number of other metrics. So without passing any judgment on the following list (or those posts left off it), these are the entries to the One Post Challenge that ranked highest across a series of web analytic metrics. If you missed any of these, click through and give them a read.

Guidestar for Sale: An argument for Guidestar selling out to Google or another online giant. Guidestar CEO Bob Ottenhoff responded in the comments.

Why Young Alumni Don’t Give: An examination of the generational differences between young alumni and university development departments. Points out that mailing donation requests to digital native alumni who don’t have a checkbook or even own stamps is not a very good strategy.

An Evacuation of the Ivory Towers: A proposal for foundation program officers to get out of their offices and become office-less (in order to better understand the communities they serve). People in the comments section loved the idea.

The Burden of “Burden of Disease”: An examination of the problems that certain metrics looked at by foundations can have on nonprofits that don’t fit the metrics’ assumptions.

Foundations Should Be More Like Public Companies: An argument for why foundations need to imitate public companies in the areas of public disclosure, customer service, and shareholder vs. stakeholder responsibility.

Charity Navigator’s Vital Mission Hides Flawed Rankings: This post makes a theoretical argument for the flaws in Charity Navigator’s model and shows evidence of how competing systems base on similar data return widely different results. This post was highlighted on the Chronicle of Philanthropy website.

Are We Killing Our Grantees?: Authored by a program director at the Lumina Foundation, this post wonders if foundations and other donors are giving too much money to certain nonprofits.

Volunteers Who Do Not Show: A rant from a volunteer program coordinator about volunteers that flake out on their commitment and what to do about it. This post was also featured on the Chronicle of Philanthropy website.

Why Philanthropy Should Embrace Controversy: A post from a family foundation employee arguing that viewing philanthropy as a nice thing to be celebrated rather than a controversial subject matter to be debated sells short the actual importance of philanthropy.

Tweet This Post

By Sean Stannard-Stockton | Also posted in Cross-Disciplinary Conversations, Philanthropy | Comments (2)

And The Winner Is…

December 4, 2007 – 8:58 am

Surprise, surprise, the post $500 For Your Nonprofit won, no… absolutely dominated, the One Post Challenge. Regarding whether the post actually furthered the online philanthropy conversation, I will note that a number of people who were drawn to Tactical Philanthropy to vote for their charity stuck around and commented on other posts.

Without further ado here is the victory speech from the author of $500 For Your Nonprofit, the anonymous author of the blog Don’t Tell The Donor.

By “a fundraiser”

When I submitted my entry to Sean’s “One Post Challenge”, it wasn’t my intention to hijack the contest.

Fourteen months ago when I started my Don’t Tell the Donor blog, it was one of only a handful of fundraising blogs. Over the past year, I was initially excited to see so many more bloggers add to the online conversation.

Unfortunately, the proliferation of websites has all too often produced an incestuous conversation. For this medium to reach its strongest potential and serve as a true benefit to the nonprofits we serve, we must find a way to reach out beyond a limited number of fundraisers and foundation staffers to engage directly with individual donors.

As I wrote in my initial post, “blogging is not about talking AT PEOPLE, it’s about making readers part of the story and giving them a reason to be engaged.”

Engaged was a bit of an understatement. Within the first 24 hours, my post generated 57 comments, which by itself would have been enough to win the contest.

Sean himself noted that the deluge of hopeful supporters leaving comments for their cause generated more traffic to the website than his mentions in both the Chronicle of Philanthropy and the New York Times. That single comment proved my point more than the huge number of posts that came in.

…oh, but by the way… there were a heckuva a lot of comments. As I write this now, it looks like there are 683 total comments. I will leave it to Sean to see if he thinks there was any cheating with multiple votes coming from the same IP address (Sean’s note: The voting seems to be valid. Some duplicate voting on both sides, but nothing that would change the outcome)… but here is how I saw the horserace unfold:

A total of ten nonprofits tried to lobby for votes. The early leader, Pride at Work after generating more than 60 votes within the first 36 hours. Thanks to one dedicated activist who was able to use his own site to reach out to more people, Pride at Work built a commanding lead… so much of a lead, they stopped thinking about the contest.

Then, on November 26th, someone who went by the name “Kjerstin” posted comment #75 – the first vote for Forge. That was followed by more than 50 more votes for Forge within the next couple hours… and the battle lines were drawn.

For the last week, votes poured in from both charities. It wasn’t until late on December 3rd when Pride at Work must have thought the voting was over when Forge moved in for their final push. The refugee assistance group poured on more than 250 votes in the final day and won the contest by a final vote (through 683 total votes) by a score of 423-231.

Truth be told, I had never heard of either group when this contest started, but I have learned a lot about them in the past couple weeks… I hope others have. Both groups did an excellent outreach marketing job… and I would suggest that even though I will donate the $500 gift card (Sean’s note: the prize increased to $750 during the contest) I won to Forge, I would like to suggest that Sean award his second $250 award to the second place group in this contest, Pride at Work.

My work here is done. This “fundraiser” is off to run a couple victory laps around the blogosphere. Congratulations to Sean and to Forge (who apparently live about an hour away from each hour). I would encourage other bloggers to organize these challenges… it seems much more effective than those bland carnivals.

Thanks again for letting me be a part.

Tweet This Post

By Sean Stannard-Stockton | Also posted in Cross-Disciplinary Conversations, Giving Blogs, Philanthropy, Prize Philanthropy, Social Media, nptech | Comments (3)

One Post Challenge Wrap Up

December 3, 2007 – 10:35 am

Wow.

I am deeply impressed with the people who took the time to participate in the One Post Challenge. Never did I imagine that the result would tally up to 36 entries and over 200 comments (and that excludes the over 400 comments on the $500 For Your Nonprofit! post).

You can find all of the entries under the heading One Post Challenge Entries in the middle column. The contest officially ends tomorrow at midnight (new entries are not being accepted, but comments will still be counted until the deadline).

Clearly though, what happened here goes far beyond the contest. Entries came from all over and covered a huge range of topics. Time and again people entering their post told me, “I’ve wanted to say this for a long time, but I haven’t had a venue. Thanks for hosting this.” I was particularly impressed with the number of foundation employees who entered posts and the foundations themselves who approved of their employees blogging.

Some people have complained that the post by the author of Don’t Tell The Donor “hijacked” the competition. Personally, I think the issue is kind of beside the point at this point. However, I think the $500 For Your Nonprofit post highlighted the fact that people who know how to spread ideas online are poised to win the public mindshare. Writing smart content is not going to change the world, you have to know how to make your message spread.

I enjoyed the One Post Challenge far too much to end it now. So I’m going to officially make posting guest blog entries part of Tactical Philanthropy. I’ll post more info about this later, but if you have something you’d like to share, keep the entries coming.

Now even though the $500 For Your Nonprofit post is, short of a miracle, going to win the contest, there is still a $250 charitable gift card waiting to be awarded to another post (click here for details). So my question to you is which entry should win this runner-up prize? Leave a comment on this post and on Wednesday, I’ll announce the winner.

Tweet This Post

By Sean Stannard-Stockton | Also posted in Philanthropy, Social Media | Comments (3)

Why Philanthropy Should Embrace Controversy

November 30, 2007 – 2:30 pm

This entry to the One Post Challenge comes from “a young foundation staffer”. The author is “a recent college graduate who has interned with an operating foundation, a venture fund at a community foundation, and now a family foundation.”

By “a young foundation staffer”

The work philanthropists and foundations is inherently controversial.

Decisions to grant money to a particular cause and to a particular organization are always decisions not to give that money elsewhere. No individual and no foundation has enough money to solve all of the problems out there or to even to really fund all the approaches to a particular problem out there. Foundation work and strategies are about decisions: to give in this country or city, to fund short-term or long-term solutions, to prevent the problem or treat the disease, to listen to a community member’s idea or to the expert advice.

In this sense, philanthropy is like voting. We generally want to encourage more people to do it because democracy is healthier when more people engage it in. But stopping at ”more is better” and “any is good” is wrong, deeply misleading, and potentially harmful to society. It is also healthier for democracy if people are informed voters and if people disagree and debate about who should receive their vote. These are tough issues and tough problems; we don’t agree on them and pretending we do is naive. Similarly, while it’s fine to acknowledge that philanthropy is generous and positive, on the whole, we also should acknowledge that it should involve informed decision making and a willingness to engage with the idea that one’s decision could be wrong. And like our government, philanthropy has done a lot of good, but it has done harm too.

Too many times, I think, we try to take the controversy and the politics out of the work by talking only about how “giving is good and generous, etc.” or by trying to boil it down to a science of identifying high impact organizations, and that does a disservice to everyone. Debate in board meetings and amongst staff members and between different foundations and, most of all, in communities should be about more than whether a nonprofit is “well-run”. It should be about whether it is a pressing problem, whether the approach is right, and whether the values underlying it are ones we want to endorse. And we should see that kind of deep probing as healthy signs that the decision makers are thinking about the consequences of the decision to give somewhere (or rather, the decision to NOT give to many other somewheres) and recognizing the valid arguments about why their decision might be wrong.

That’s why, I think it’s too bad that the “$500 for Your Nonprofit!” post didn’t ask people to engage in a conversation about not just what nonprofit, but why their nonprofit. The premise generated responses, but leaving it at that simplifies the nature of philanthropy. One’s vote in that challenge is an implicit decision that an issue is critical and that an organization is the most deserving. We shouldn’t ignore that.

Generosity and empathy certainly inspire the decision to give, and evaluations, assessments, and research of all sorts are tools for helping make the decision. But none of that can take the controversy out of it. And we should be thankful, rather than frustrated or scared, by that reality because it means we’re engaging with how hard and how vital this work is.

Tweet This Post

By Sean Stannard-Stockton | Also posted in Cross-Disciplinary Conversations, Foundations, New Philanthropy, Philanthropy | Comments (15)

More on Mergers, Ms. Miller!

November 30, 2007 – 2:23 pm

This entry to the One Post Challenge comes from Jean Butzen. Jean runs Mission Plus Strategy consulting, specializing in mergers and alliances in the Chicago area.

By Jean Butzen

We Gotta Have Scale!

November 30, 2007 – 2:19 pm

This entry to the One Post Challenge comes from “another nonprofit professional”: “I’m a long-time nonprofit professional (think its a decade now), based in Washington DC, who dances between domestic and international programs. I focus on economic development empowered by technology and have a serious alergic reaction to trumped up claims of impact, even though I find myself acquiescing to it on occasion.”

By “another nonprofit professional”

We Gotta Have Scale!

That was the call to action today at my humble start-up within a nonprofit, “We gotta have scale! Funders only respond to big numbers.”

Apparently, even though we would double the beneficiaries in out target market, serving twice as many people as all our competitors combined, our realistic target wasn’t enough. Because our competitors had so little scale, our numbers would not be impressive on a national level and no one is going to write us fat checks if we didn’t “expand” our beneficiary pool.

I am sure this sounds familiar to anyone working in the nonprofit world. It doesn’t matter if you speak in hundreds, thousands, or millions, you too feel the pressure to scale. To conjure new ways to double triple, exponentially increase your beneficiary pool to grab funders’ attention.

But what does “scale” really mean?

Does quantity beget quality? Is breadth better than depth? Does it really resonate with you that your organization had a 5 minute or 50 minute interaction with a beneficiary when you know it takes years to really make an impact?

Wouldn’t we all trade in every single million person metric if we could empowering just one community to provide our services in our stead?

Then why do we play this scale game? Why do I see so many nonprofits heralding the hundreds, thousands, millions served? McDonalds stopped counting at 99 billion served, moving on to other, better metrics of outcomes, not just activity. We in the nonprofit world need to do the same.

We need to change the conversation.

“Scale” should be used to describe the depth of our impact. Not “millions served” but “outcomes of our work”. Yes, its messy, and it doesn’t fit beneath golden arches, but we’re not, and should not be in the business of mass or fast. And our message shouldn’t be either.

I want us to face the challenge to scale, all right. The challenge to scale our impact with each person, not per person.

Tweet This Post

By Sean Stannard-Stockton | Also posted in Cross-Disciplinary Conversations, Philanthropy | Comments (0)

Not Just “Grant” Making

November 29, 2007 – 12:07 pm

This entry to the One Post Challenge comes from Amy Sample Ward. Amy is a Communications and Learning Associate at the Meyer Memorial Trust. She authors MMT’s New Media Blog as well as a personal blog devoted to nonprofit technology.

By Amy Sample Ward

As the holiday season is now in full swing and many organizations are launching online donation campaigns, I have been thinking more and more about how closely my personal views of “giving” have formed my professional ones.

Working in a large private foundation means that I am all too familiar with large amounts of initial inquiries and grant applications flooding in every month. Previously, I worked in nonprofits, though, and am also very familiar with the kinds of Christmas lists small, grassroots organizations can really think up.

Whenever conversation turns to philanthropy and how we teach philanthropy to our children, as it does often this time of year (especially in the blogosphere, like on Beth’s blog), I chime in with the argument that not all giving equals money and that not all organizations really need money as much as other things. For example, a domestic violence shelter may have enough funds and in-kind agreements to maintain its kitchen consistently, but doesn’t have enough volunteers to help with tutoring and child care in the evening when dinner is being prepared. There are many alternatives to donating money, be it time, skills, knowledge, community, or even man power.

So, how does that view of philanthropy in my own life change that of my professional life at a foundation? I don’t think that our responsibility is to just dole out the cash—we have a whole lot more to offer! As a foundation, we have program officers and other staff with terrific skills and knowledge that range from grant writing and strategic planning to mission and vision planning, technology and communications skills to engagement and outreach tactics. There are many nonprofits that apply for grants and are declined. They could still desperately need and grow from training or other outreach and support in the other areas I mentioned above.

As grantmakers, we need to accept a broader role than just “grant” makers. We need to step up to provide knowledge, skills, and resources when it is really in all of our best interests to do so; after all, those nonprofits are fulfilling needed services in our communities and that’s why they applied for the grant in the first place! Contributing all that we can as an organization is the best way to align with our own missions to serve nonprofits and our communities as best as possible.

Tweet This Post

By Sean Stannard-Stockton | Also posted in Cross-Disciplinary Conversations, Foundations, Grantmaking, Philanthropy, Volunteering | Comments (4)

Volunteers Who Do Not Show

November 29, 2007 – 11:52 am

This entry to the One Post Challenge comes from Chrissy Weeks. Chrissy is a paralegal at the Atlanta Volunteer Lawyers Foundation (“AVLF”) and President of the Georgia Association of Paralegals.

By Chrissy Weeks

“The world is run by those who show up!” This is not my quote I got it from somewhere and have to admit I am not sure where. But I start with this quote because I am frustrated by those who do not show up being the ones who suddenly want to voice their opinions.

I coordinate hundreds of volunteers each year for both the Atlanta Volunteer Lawyers Foundation and the Georgia Association of Paralegals. The vast majority of our volunteers are WONDERFUL. They take on unpleasant projects with grace and a smile. They simply do what they are needed to do and report back to us. They are why we exist and why we are able to serve the population that we serve.

Ok now that I have covered my butt – back to the point. I have people sign up for things and then they do not show up! One “volunteer” had the audacity to say “oh, I didn’t realize me not showing up (or even bothering to call you and tell you I was not coming) was a problem”. I had another person tell me that she was confused and was not sure if she was needed. How confusing is: be at this address at 10am. This same “volunteer” then proceeded to tell me that I was not coordinating things very well. Good Lord! People! Butter my butt and call me a biscuit I do not know what else to do but pick you up and take you to things myself.

Well of course it is a problem if you do not show! I now know to pad my volunteers b/c I would rather have too many volunteers. But if too many volunteers simply flake out and think that their participation does not matter for any given event then I am in real trouble. It makes me look bad. When in reality it should be the “volunteer” who looks bad. I dream of posting a volunteer black list. But I am a southerner and still have a few manors left So I don’t post it. But I do keep that list in my head.

So if you are one of these people who does not show up and who does not call, just know that it does make an impact. And you are on my list! The world will not be run by you b/c you are not the one to show up!

So how do y’all deal with volunteers who do not show? Am I the only one who has this problem (I really hope not)? Do you have some sort of screening process for your volunteers? (we do but it obviously is not water tight).

Tweet This Post

By Sean Stannard-Stockton | Also posted in Cross-Disciplinary Conversations, Philanthropy, Volunteering | Comments (16)

David Velasco: I can recommend in Latin America 2 guys: - Fernando Frydmann (www.cmsocial.com) from Argentina -...
kevin jones: many existing for profit marketplaces have tiered engagements that allow what you are suggesting, Sean....
Sean Stannard-Stockton: Maryann, Super interesting idea. I would worry that an audience member might take over and...
Maryann Fernandez: I was at a philanthropy retreat a few years back and they ran a “fishbowl” session...
David Simms: Jessica Jackley, co-founder of Kiva brings great passion and energy to her talks. She will keep the...
CVNL Marin: John Wood, author of “Leaving Microsoft to Change the World” and founder of Room to Read. Not...

Category Archives: One Post Challenge

One Post Challenge Runner Up

Philanthropy Reading

Why Philanthropy Should Embrace Controversy

More on Mergers, Ms. Miller!

We Gotta Have Scale!

Not Just “Grant” Making

Volunteers Who Do Not Show

Find out…

RSS

Sean on Twitter

Recent Comments

Blogs I Read Everyday

Other Great Philanthropy Blogs

Press Coverage

Archives

Categories